Jump to content

JoshC.

Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9201

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    416

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by JoshC.

  1. JoshC.

    10 Years of Afterburn

    By JoshC.,

    10 years ago, Thorpe Park were graced with the introduction of Nemesis Inferno. It was B&M's 22nd Inverted coaster, a type of roller coaster which had proven most popular over the previous ten years. Billed as 'the world's greatest roller coaster experience' and having a name that obviously was leading itself to be a successor to the extremely popular Nemesis, the ride had a lot to live up to.
    Unfortunately, Inferno didn't live up to hype. From what I can gather, it's not a particularly highly rated B&M Invert (it's hard for me to judge of course, having only been on two B&M Inverts, but this is based on what I've heard across various forums, and based on the, Mitch Hawker Poll, where it ranked 123rd, if you feel that has some validity) and is seen as a 'good, but not great' ride. It could also suffer from the criticism of it being a 'cookie cutter' B&M, to a degree. So, instead of being a successor to Nemesis, it ended up more being the runt of the two - not that that's a surprise to anyone really.
    However, when you wash away the hype, the expectation and the comparisons, Nemesis Inferno is, simply put, a solid, well-rounded ride. It's nothing special, but not everything has to be, and sometimes I think people expect everything to 'be special'. Inferno is easily the park's least-gimmicky major coaster (something which I think is indirectly highlighting on the park's website as well), which, in a way, makes it more appealing to the general public, especially as a 'starter big coaster'.
    My first ride came a year after it opened, and in honesty, I don't remember being particularly impressed. Okay, maybe impressed is the wrong word - I did enjoy it and that, but it felt somewhat lacking to me. For various reasons, I rated coasters such as Colossus, Dragon's Fury and Vampire as 'better'. However, as time has gone on, it has improved in leaps and bounds. I think it's safe to say that the ride has aged incredibly well. Like modern B&Ms, it is quite smooth, yet it has aged in such a way that there are a couple of intense moments; specifically the vertical loop. From about 2006 to 2011, it was my favourite coaster at Thorpe, and second favourite I'd been on, which I think does speak for itself. Last year, for some reason, it didn't rank as well with me; I can't quite explain why though. It just 'felt' as if it wasn't as good as I thought it was. It's tenth year, though, it has come into its own. Fast and intense, with the audio and effects really showing that it is a good ride.
    As said earlier, some could criticise the ride for being a bit of a 'cookie cutter' B&M, just sticking together some tried and tested elements and creating a decent ride without really doing anything innovative. The pre-lift section is fun, but feels wasted. Unfortunately, the tunnel which it goes through requires the effects (mist and lovely red lights) to be bursting onto you; this is very hit-and-miss. After the near-100ft climb follows the 'standard' drop to the left followed by a forceful vertical loop. A zero-g roll follows; these inversions are quite possibly my favourite inversion, and this one is quick, relentless and unforgiving.
    We get a surprisingly low, ground-hugging turn, which takes us into the first of two 'interlocking corkscrews'. Personally, I don't rate the corkscrews; I don't particular feel like they are a worthwhile part to the ride. They feel very bog-standard, and just thrown in because they work on other Inverts. Thing is, the whole 'interlocking corkscrew' thing doesn't exactly shout out to anyone 'Look at me, I'm an exciting ride', yet I almost feel it was designed to have it in mind, and took away from a potentially more interesting element.
    Anyway, enough of the negatives. Following the interlocking corkscrews, the ride meanders a little bit into the finale; a figure of eight helix. Whilst the meandering feels a bit unnatural and against the rhythm of the ride, the finale is fun. The best elements of the ride do come in the first half, which makes the second half feel somewhat lacking; a shame really, but I guess that happens in a lot of coasters to be fair.
    Theming-wise, the centre-piece volcano is visually striking and impressive. Okay, so what if the other side of it is just a tin-shed; it doesn't actually take away from the appearance, and it just generally is a pointless thing to worry about. There's so many ways money invested in finishing it off could be spent, most of which would be a much better idea. Other than a few bits of rockwork, and long-gone crocodiles hiding in the pools, there's not really any other bits of theming, which is a shame. However, I can't see how much else could effectively have been added to the ride / ride area. Along with the tunnel effects, there are the geysers which sometimes works; always good to watch them when off-ride. What really sells Inferno, though, is the scenery - all of the trees, foliage and so forth makes you feel like you're in some tropical area, and you actually are nearby a real volcano. It just works - perfectly.
    So, that's about it really. Inferno is probably Thorpe's most consistently rated coaster; very few people I know of 'dislike' or 'hate' the ride, and the general opinion of it seems quite positive. In a way, that's what's made this blog entry very difficult to write (4 months in the making, on and off), because it's hard to describe the quality of a coaster like Inferno when everyone more or less accepts that quality. However, being 10 years since it opened, I felt like I needed to do it, and had promised to do one following my Saw, well over a year ago...
    And I leave you with this:

    Feel the heat SNOW. (Taken on 4th April 2013; Inferno's 10th birthday!)
  2. JoshC.
    After trawling through the planning portal again, which is always interesting I find, I came across the original plans for Colossus. Much like with the http://forum.maniahub.com/topic/151-tidal-wave/page-30#entry164771]original Tidal Wave plans, they are quite different. But before I divulge into that further, let's look at how a new coaster came about in the first place...

    As is well known, in 1997, the Tussauds Group took over Thorpe. Prior to that, as you'd expect, it was hard for the park to get serious funding for any major development or investment into the park. In the 10 years prior to that, there had only been two 'major' investments - Canada Creek and X:\NWO. Due to the otherwise low investments, and local competition from Chessington and the newly opened Legoland Windsor, guest numbers were declining and the park was not making profits. In fact, the park themselves describe it as a "spiral of decline", and between 1993 and 1998, visitor numbers had dropped from 1.35million to 0.8million; quite a significant drop really!


    This shows the number of visitors, in millions. This was made sometime during the 1999 season, so any figures for 1999 and after are predictions / hopes (with a coaster opening in 2001).


    Thought this might be of interest too. Attendances at the Tussauds parks and Windsor Safari Park on a similar timescale.

    The introduction of Pirates 4D and Tidal Wave was aimed to be, if anything, a 'quick fix', to boost visitor numbers in the short term. Pirates had the intriguing tagline of 'the UK's first 4D cinema', and Tidal Wave could pretty much sell itself, so those investments spread over two years would help attract some people to the park. However, more is of course needed, especially as Tussauds aimed to turn the park into a profitable, year-round business. Of course, as it is, Thorpe still isn't a year-round park.

    The aim was, just after the turn of the century, to introduce two big, huge new rides. This would, essentially, be the first step in truly turning the park around. Tussauds noted that, following the introduction of Nemesis at Alton Towers, that park turned around, and it was hoped the same could happen with Thorpe. Two rides were applied for in 1999, to open in 2000 and 2001 - what is described as a "45m elevator ride" and a 40m coaster respectively. Both plans were withdrawn following discussions with the council (and, as such, plans for the rides are not available online). Despite the council advising the best location of the coaster - the current location of Colossus - it was said to be difficult to get approval for the coaster. Whilst it was probable they could have gotten approval for the 45m ride, they decided to withdraw that application too to help with the approval of a revised, 30m tall coaster - what we now know to be Colossus. I can't quite figure out where this elevator ride would have gone, but by the sounds of it, the area would have been close to the coaster, and were to be developed soon. So, I'd guess we'd be looking at where the Lost City flat rides are (which makes sense with rumours I've heard of Detonator originally being planned for Lost City).

    So, the park didn't just want this new coaster, they needed it. Without it, the park would struggle and continue its spiral of decline quicker than a helter-skelter. It was projected that an additional 200,000 people would visit the park thanks to the new coaster; a quarter of their current visitors. Can you imagine a ride now where the park hoped they'd get almost an extra 500k visitors thanks to it? So, it was a huge risk in one way; if they didn't get the visitors, it was huge amount of money pretty much chucked down the drain.

    So, that's enough background I reckon. But, with all that in mind, what sort of ride do you go for? Well, the park's first choice was, interestingly, a LIM coaster (just to be clear, this coaster had a maximum height of 30m. As I mentioned earlier, the plans for a 40m coaster aren't anywhere online, unfortunately). A brief outline of the coaster itself: The actual launch mechanism was to be inside a tunnel, for protection apparently. After the launch, the train would dip down slightly, and then enter a cobra roll, which would be the high point of the ride, and a vertical loop would follow. Some strange, twisty meandering in the air, an airtime hill and another weird twisty bit and the ride ends. It covers almost the exact same area as Colossus I believe, though a bit shifted about of course.


    A side on view of the coaster.


    A view from where, I think, Rush or Quantum is now situated. Looks...interesting.

    However, for reasons I can't find, the plans changed, despite approval of this coaster. I'd assume one reason the plans changed to what we now know to be Colossus is to get the world record inversion count. If you're gonna do something big, you may as well do something massive, right? Personally, I think I prefer what we have now. Colossus really was, and always will be, the ride which 'put the park on the map'. Whilst it might now be uncomfortable and not highly rated - especially amongst enthusiasts - it did the job, and still does to this day.



    A couple of badly-edited pictures showing the difference of how the coasters would have looked.

    As some may know, and as I mentioned to earlier, Colossus was intended to open for 2001. However, due to this change in plan, the project was pushed back a year. Perhaps this was fortunate for the park; 2001 brought instead 3 new attractions, bringing in more guests, and adding to people knowing of the big, brand new coaster coming next year.

    So, we now have the coaster we know and 'love' as Colossus applied for and approved. Yet what we have today is still slightly different to what was originally planned! The entrance was is a completely different place to where it is now - though the cobra roll. The queue would start there, go down into the pit (similar to Smiler's entrance in a way I guess), and then meander around in a similar, but shorter, fashion to as it does now. The shop also bordered directly with the station, instead of its current location.


    I've - badly - shown the queue layouts; black is ordinary, red is Fastrack (then known as Virtual Q). Interestingly, approx maximum queue times were 40mins and 15mins respectively!


    This is a RCT screenshot made by John Wardley, where you can see the entrance through the cobra roll. (Photo taken from Thorpe Park Guide Archives).

    I'd guess the changes to the queue line and shop location were more cosmetic more than anything else. Again, I think I prefer what we have now, specifically the pit, than what we could have had.

    So that's about it really. If you read through all that ramble, I hope it made sense. I just thought I'd share the wondrous history of Colossus which I've pieced together - from the initial reasons and vision, to design and to what we have got today.
  3. JoshC.
    Since the turn of the century, we've seen Thorpe accelerate from a quaint family theme park into a park which offers one of the largest array of 'thrill rides' in Europe. During this period, there has been quiet on obvious shift in target market - from families looking for a nice day out to young adults (which arguably is the 16-34 region in this case) looking to do something for a day. Many question the viability of this strategy, mainly from an economic perspective. However, are Thorpe right to focus on the young adults solely and try and turn away families, or should they open their arms a bit wider and accomodate for families as well?
    I think the first point to raise here is that, no matter what anyone's personal opinion on Thorpe's focus on young adults, the strategy has worked. Despite a poor season in 2012, for reason which may or may nor relate to this, Thorpe have had years of booming success, and have been able to invest heavily in their maor attractions. So clearly they have had some success with this strategy. However, just because there has been success, it doesn't mean it cannot be improved, not does it mean that it is foolproof.
    Thorpe Park seem to be focusing on becoming a thrill park / an 'experience' park. The majority of their additions since 2000 make that obvious. This is something which should most definitely be encouraged and should continue; there is not really any park in the UK (can't think of any in Europe either off the top of my head) which has a primary focus on thrill rides. This does not mean that the park shouldn't add non-thrilling rides as well, but that's a different topic really.
    With this is mind, it must now be asked - who likes thrill rides? Now, for some reason, it is straight away seen to be the young adults. Probably because we're young in life, up for trying things and so forth, and it does seem to be a general case that many of those who like thrill rides fit into that particular age bracket. However, it's not an exclusive thing. When most kids are 10, they hit the 1.4m barrier, and when they're 12, they're 'old enough' for Thorpe's mazes. These kids will want to try the thrill rides, and whilst thrill ride after thrill ride may be a bit much, the more 'up for it' / slightly older kids will see Thorpe as somewhere right down their street. So, maybe focusing on those over 16 is a bit high, though with the quickness that kids grow up these days, what is targetted at a 16 year old may well interest those who are 12-13. Then there's also adults. When you 'get on in life', it doesn't mean you dislike these thrill rides. In the 'mid-life crisis' years, you're up for trying new things, showing to everyone you're not as old as your age says you are and so forth, and going on thrill rides is a great way of showing this. So again, there will be interest from those above the age of 34, though maybe the young adult target market / marketing strategies will deter people a bit.
    So, with this knowledge, should Thorpe Park welcome families? Well, yes and no; it depends on what you define as a family. If by family, you mean everyone - from the toddler up to the grandparents, then no, Thorpe should try their best to deter that sort of family from visiting. Whilst there will be a select few rides the young children and the older generations can ride, there won't be enough for them to have a worthwhile, enjoyable day. Now then, there's nothing wrong with that, as it's just Thorpe's direction. Just like Chessington should discourage people who just want thrill after thrill from visiting. There's nothing particularly wrong in that. (Just to point out, I'm not say that all the kids' rides should therefore be removed, as no matter what. children will still visit, and there should be something for them to do. However, Thorpe just aren't focusing on them, so, when possible, such people shouldn't visit. There are also cases when the elderly still like thrill rides; nothing wrong in that as well.).
    However, a family full of people from the age of 8-55 is a completely different story. There will be enough for them to do to enjoy their day, as they will like thrill rides. If Thorpe introduce a family-friendly major coaster and a couple more 1.2m rides, it would be perfect for this age range family (as it stands, those in that age range who are under 1.4m / not wanting to do many thrill rides may find their day drag on after a while..). This opens up a wider range of possibilities for the park, and creates more chances for more profit, which is what a business wants at the end of the day.
    Imagine this. A park which has a range of thrill rides, some of which are highly rated amongst coasters and rides in Europe, and maybe even the world, which welcomes families which are up for a good day out. You can still target the young adults wanting a day out with friends, and can still work in club nights and after-hours events for them to enjoy and draw them in. But then you can also target families who want to enjoy themselves; the things like the stunt shows Thorpe hold are examples of events which such families would enjoy too. I can just see it working so well for the park.
    So, all in all, I think Thorpe should begin to welcome families. Use either 2013 or 2014 (or both?!) as a test - see how families respond to it. If X:NWO gets a reduced height restriction, it can be used as a way of testing the water and drawing such families in who might have been jubious in the past. Introduce a major 1.2m coaster (a woodie or air time filled machine) and market it as just an all out fun ride. Expand the target audience to be much wider, and boom, more guests and more profit for Thorpe, and the chances for better experiences for all.
    Win-win surely?
  4. JoshC.
    Back in 1995, Thorpe Park was an extremely different place. Rather than being an island screaming out to the world about its thrills and spills, it was a quaint little family theme park, that kept itself to itself. Instead of the skyline being dominated by the likes of Stealth and Swarm, a large diving pole was the centre point, with Loggers Leap and Depth Charge being the highest rides on park at 60ft and 40ft respectively (and yet wouldn't really obstruct the skyline from outside the park too much).
    A year later, that dramatically changed. The park's first non-powered coaster landed, and concealed itself in a large, 50ft-odd (anyone know the exact height of it? ) blue and terracotta pyramid. 1996 was the year X:No Way Out arrived on park. It was the last investment made by the park's first owners, RMC, and no doubt their biggest, though an exact figure seems to be unknown. The ride was the first backwards in the dark roller coaster to ever be built, and I think to this day, remains the only one which completes its circuit going wholly backwards in the dark.
    I think many enthusiasts forget to consider X in the perspective of when it was built. As I've tried to get across, Thorpe didn't have much in the way of 'big rides', they weren't that sort of park at the time. X changed that and, to me, signalled the beginning of the change from this little park to the thrill park we have today (with the consecutive investments of Colossus and Nemesis Inferno truly showing that Thorpe wasn't just going to be 'a theme park', it was to be a 'thrill park'). It dominated the park's skyline, and was something completely different and unique.
    I've made no secret that, recently, I really like X. I don't quite know what it is about it, but it has a certain charm to it that really appeals to me. But before I explain why I like it so much, let's rewind a bit - all the way back to 2004. My first visit of the 2004 season saw my first visit to a theme park when I was over 1.4m tall. Having visited the park all of my life and seen 'big rides' such as Colossus and Nemesis Inferno installed, I was really looking forward to finally be able to go on such rides. However, for some reason, X ended up being my first 1.4m ride; really not sure why, but hey-ho.
    As strange as it sounds, just before going in the building, I was scared. So scared, in fact, that I was nearly took into the pyramid kicking and screaming... When I look back, I don't quite understand why. I'd been into the pyramid before and all around the queue the year before (and the waited in the control cabin whilst family went on the ride). I knew the ride went backwards in the dark, and I knew it wasn't 'too scary'. Yet, going into the pyramid knowing I'd be riding the ride scared me.

    The X:No Way Out entrance before Storm Surge ruined it. Photo taken from Wikipedia.
    Anyways, moving on. I plucked up the courage to go on and...I was disappointed. The ride bored me, to the extent that I started just having 'general chit chat' whilst on the ride. The ride was random, seemed pretty poor and just lacked any substance. Then when the nine year old me later compared it to the likes of Colossus and Inferno, what else could I think? After then until the end of the 2006 season, I think I rode it about 2-3 times. The worst testament a ride can get to a regular visitor is that such visitors don't ride it, even when they're going on other rides time and time again.
    Then came 2007. 2007 was around about the time I started discovering enthusiast sites and forums, and started reading them with interest. I guess you could say that was the time when I realised my love for theme parks (or, at that time, Tussauds' Parks) was actually an enthusiasm; a hobby. 2007 was also when X apparently got it's '£600k refurb' thing. So, that drew me in to give X another go. And I did. Yet, to me, little had changed. It was the same old boring ride which was stuck in the past. It still didn't blow me away.
    Now we fast forward to 2009. I don't quite know what it was, but this was a turning point for me and my opinion on X. It had finally dawned on me that X served a purpose different to any other ride at Thorpe. It was meant to be random, it wasn't meant to make sense or to be taken as a serious thrill ride in the park (at least, not now - maybe when it opened, it would have been different). And it was that realisation that changed my whole view on X from a ride which seemed to be taking up valuable space to a ride which was high on my 'to do list' for almost every visit.
    The experimentations with the ride since then, such as turning the lights on in 2010, the 'techno' music, flashing lights and so forth have been of much entertainment to me as well. In a way, it's said to me that X is not only a random ride and one that shouldn't be taken as a serious ride, but it's a ride which shouldn't be taken seriously at all. When you see it in such a light-hearted way, it does what it's meant to do perfectly.

    The X entrance and opening plaza is now ruined by Storm Surge. As a side note, I like how the entrance is still so unassuming about what is contained in the pyramid. (Apologises about the poor quality!)
    That's enough about the whole history of my opinion on X. I think it's clear that I have developed a love for X; even if it's just because it's got a "so bad that it's good" feel to it. But, why exactly does it have 'No Way Out' of my heart? One thing I have a trouble with is how words like 'iconic' are thrown around so much (not just in the theme park world, but in general) that they become worthless. Rides that have a meaning to you are like your personal icon rides, and as such, they should be special, not just every other ride. I think this shows just how much I appreciate X.
    I think the reason it is so special to me is that, as I've said, it's a ride which has sorta shown that a ride's purpose and direction, and how that purpose is marketed, is so important. In a way, a bit like Th13teen - Th13teen was marketed as a thrill ride, yet its purpose was a family ride. It was poorly received at first, but now the thrill hype has gone away, it's a success. But X is different. It has always been marketed as a thrill ride and that it should be a serious thing. However, that's not what it is and not its purpose, and until you 'get' that, you cannot appreciate X. And this is the real shame - most people won't 'get' that, due to the misrepresentation of the ride itself.
    And that brings me nearly to the end. I'm not going to go into any details about the ride experience, the theming, the audio
    and so forth like I would if I were to 'review' a ride. Personally, I think that would be unnecessary; a ride doesn't have to be defined as 'good' to be special to someone. However, I want to bring up one final point. To those of you that read
    my views on The Antelope at Gulliver's World, you may remember I ended by saying that I feel the more I've become an enthusiast, the more I lose the reason why I became an enthusiast - "the innocent enjoyment of a ride". Yet, strangely, it seems that with the case of X:No Way Out, it is the very opposite - the more I've become an enthusiast, the more I've grown to appreciate and, in turn, enjoy, rides more.
    Peculiar.
  5. JoshC.
    Whilst this entry may seem technically coaster related (and, in a way, is), the core idea about the blog isn't, so I'm giving this blog a bit more love...
    For my university course, one module I've had to take is Geometry and Motion, with the key element of the module being to learn about curves. Each week, we're given assignments (which count towards our final grade) which consists of multiple questions. In last week's assignment, the final question was this:

    Simply put, we were asked to sketch out a line representing a roller coaster, and give equations for the various segments. This had to be shown in 3D on the paper; basically show where the 'track' goes behind / in front of itself. There was no need for it to make mechanical sense / being realistic in any other way, as the point of the question was to have the roller coaster lines as an equation in terms of time (so that at any given time, it would show the 'coordinates' of where the track would be).
    Of course, this doesn't have to be wholly difficult. In theory, the question can be answered by giving the equation of a vertical loop (due to the need for the 'fun feature') and then a circle to join itself back to the beginning (which, in terms of what we have been taught, is straightforward). This wasn't the general case, with many that I spoke to going for the idea of a lift and drop, with a spiral or two, vertical loop and some general straight lines to join it all together. Others went for a much more basic layout, but instead focused on a variety of different 3D sketches.
    "But where's the fun in that?" I thought to myself, when I was thinking about the assignment. Being interested in coasters as I am, to be able to do something like this should be great fun. Only having a week to do this, along with the other questions on the assignment and general life, I didn't spend that a lengthy period of time in roller coaster terms (as in, you can spend multiple hours in creating coasters in RCT or No Limits), but I probably spent about 8-9 hours during the week on the question. In terms of how long I would spend on other questions (or even whole assignments!) that is extremely large.
    Like with any 'creative' project I would do, I jotted down ideas quickly as they came into my head. Rough layouts, fun features, anything where I thought 'Oh, that would be great', I would jot it down as quickly as possible, maybe even draw quick sketches of what I had in mind. When it came to actually doing it though, it seemed as though I had been hugely over-ambitious, with a lot of ideas I had thought out just being too difficult to achieve in the set time period. Many fun elements I had considered, such as a variety of different elements, 'beyond-vertical' drops and such were more complicated to create equations for than originally anticipated. One thing which was feasible, however, were interlocking loops, inspired by the roller coaster 'Loch Ness Monster' at Busch Gardens Williamsburg.

    However, I decided to put my own little twist on it, and instead combine a vertical loop with a helix (which, in this case, was basically a horizontal loop, to have different 'fun elements'). I don't know if a roller coaster(s) in the world features an element similar to that, but I wouldn't be surprised either way.
    So then, I had my fun element, which was pretty much the key feature to the ride and the design. Combine that with a lift hill (pretty standard), a vertical drop (because that's so much easier than anything else!), airtime hill / 'bunny hop' and a couple of other bits and bobs to connect it all together and I had my coaster...visualised in my head. A few sketches later and I worked out how exactly it would look, and when the track went in front / behind itself. Now came the fun part - actually working out the equations of the coaster.
    Following the hint from the question, I split the 'track' into several different sections, thirteen in fact, to make it easier to create equations. Owing to the need to plot it onto a '3D graph', I started the track at the origin, and went from there. The beginning was relatively straightforward, basically being combined of multiple straight lines / easy curves, and due to the easy numbers, it wasn't difficult to 'stick' the curves together so that they were continuous. The first real challenge came in the creation of the 'loop de loop', as it needed to be of suitable height and width to allow for the helix to easily go through it later on. After lots of thought, and playing about with the Maths program Matlab, I eventually got there.

    A screenshot of the 'vertical loop' produced using Matlab, including the equations of the curve and the 3D graph produced.
    One thing which may be worth noting here is how the loop is circular. Whenever you look at roller coasters, these loops are by no means circular - all such loop de loops are actually clothoid loops; basically meaning the radius increases as you get further to the top of the loop. Whilst I originally tried to recreate this, it was a bit too difficult to achieve in the time period (the usual reason..)
    After a bit more playing about with equations, it got to the stage of the helix. This was much more challenging than expected, due to the need for the track to be carefully positioned before it started to ensure the actual equation for the helix, which was already somewhat scary-looking, was not even more complicated. Generally, it took a lot of hard work and thought procedure, and when I ended up creating it, I realised that the helix was going upwards, not downwards, making it the most mechanically inaccurate section in my opinion. But, it was there, and the mechanical sense was not a necessity, so I decided to leave it. A long straight section follows, which in real terms would probably consist of a twist or something, but minute details such as that could be left out for the sake of the question, as it would have added extra complexity to the equations. Basically, what I just said is that it's a straight line, but pretend it isn't..
    This was then pretty much the end of the circuit. The numbers were getting more and more complicated, so a quick and simple finish was required really. Basically I wanted to scrap the evil-looking numbers and get it over with. Had I taken more care with the numbers earlier on and thought about the equations' knock on effects to later ones, I could have added in a spiral or something as a 'big finale', but alas, an easy finish it ended up being. So, a few straight lines to act as drops and curves, and we were done.

    So then, that's pretty much the roller coaster I designed. This isn't actually the final design, as the submitted one had markings for each section, to correspond to the given equation, and the section between the turnaround on the far right hand side and the helix should only be diagonal line (I drew it incorrectly in this sketch..). Hopefully once I get my assignment back sometime in the next week, I can scan up to finished sketch and the equations for anyone interested.
    As you have probably got from this, I had a real feel of designing something which was as mechanically accurate as possible, in the sense that if you were to build this, the train would make its way around the track. I think that the final design would be possible (though maybe with a bit of help from a quick launch mid-way through), so that's a positive. In second year, there is 'Second Year Essay' that needs to be done, which basically is a project around a section of Maths that is of interest to the person. If it is allowed, I would most certainly be interested in extending this idea further, to simply just use geometry and equations to design, or recreate, a roller coaster, which is mechanically accurate, safe to ride, and has equations / expressions to find things such as the speed, force, acceleration and so forth at any given point during the roller coaster.
    Any questions or comments would be greatly appreciated!
  6. JoshC.
    In the past two decades or so, roller coaster manufacturing has seen many technological advances. Back in the 1980s, the idea of having a roller coaster where the trains were underneath the track or having a launched roller coaster was about as technologically superior as the industry has reached. The first 'suspended' coaster, 'The Bat' at Kings Island in America, opening in 1981, only to close two years later due to being highly temperamental, whilst the first launched coaster, 'King Kobra' at Kings Dominion opened in 1977, though the model was inefficient and nowhere near the type of launches commonly used in today's roller coasters (although clones of King Kobra do still operate today!).
    However, in the past two decades, we have seen many technological advances. 21 years ago saw the introduction of the first 'inverted' roller coaster (not to be confused with a suspended coaster), which was the first roller coaster to have trains underneath the track, yet act like one where the trains were above the track. In 1998, the world's first vertical drop roller coaster opening, with Oblivion at Alton Towers. Though this may not sound impressive, it is indeed a technological advancement in the way the train's wheels are designed, so that the trains are able to stay on the track. We have also seen the introduction of many other styles of roller coasters, such as flying roller coasters, winged roller coasters, beyond-vertical drop roller coasters and so much more.
    So, what is this 'vanilla roller coaster' I speak of in the title? It's not a technical term when designing a roller coaster, not is it something said to market one; it is probably a term I've made up.. Well, it's a plain and simple roller coaster - the train sits above the track, you sit down in the train, get strapped in, and away you go. There's no bits of 'trick track' (whereby the track itself moves to create an additional effect, such as track dropping vertically like a drop tower). There's no gimmicky elements to the track, such as ridiculously steep drops (vertical and beyond). There's no launches or anything like that. So basically, the plainest of the plain roller coasters (much like the flavour vanilla).

    Silver Star is an example of what I would call a 'Vanilla Coaster'. (Photo taken from CoasterForce).

    Saw - The Ride is not what I would call a Vanilla Coaster, due to the gimmicky 100 degrees 'beyond-vertical' drop it features.
    Hopefully that gives a clear enough definition of what I define to be a Vanilla Coaster. Of course, many may disagree that vanilla coasters are something which should be defined, or that what I class as vanilla coasters is incorrect, but more on this later.
    But, are vanilla coasters now dying in the current coaster market? There's a plethora of ride types available, all of which are capable of doing something vanilla coasters cannot, so they will add an extra dimension to any park's line up - give something for parks to scream and shout about. The addition of a gimmick or something different brings in crowds, so, what's not to like?
    Now seems like a nice time for a little analogy - what would you prefer: a rich, creamy Madagascar Vanilla ice cream full of proper vanilla flavour, or some Tesco Everyday Value chocolate ice cream? Coming from someone who prefers chocolate ice cream to vanilla ice cream, I'd still go for the former of the two options. And the same goes for roller coasters - I'd much rather be riding a excellent roller coaster which does nothing but go round a track with no gimmicks, than ride an okay coaster that has some gimmick(s) to it.
    So then, are vanilla coasters actually a dying concept? Well, in my opinion, yes, they are. Let's that UK theme parks for an example. Since 2003, the only vanilla coaster I can vaguely think of being introduced in the UK is 'Kiddi Koaster' at Adventure Island in 2011. So, out of at least fifteen new coasters added in the UK in the past 10 years (there's no doubt more, but this is just a quick search from major theme parks), one of them has been my so-called vanilla coaster. So, in my opinion, it's safe to say that vanilla coasters are dying in the UK, and no doubt worldwide. Why exactly they are dying is likely down to what I explained earlier - that other coasters can offer things vanilla coasters cannot. If a park gets something different, something unique, and it is in itself a good ride, then of course such a coaster is going to be seen as a better option than a vanilla coaster. To go back to the earlier analogy - given the choice of a rich, creamy Madagascar Vanilla ice cream or a 500ml tub of Ben & Jerry's, you're pretty much in a win-win situation, and it comes down to personal taste. The same applies here; given the choice of a great vanilla coaster or a great non-vanilla coaster, the choice just comes down to what is preferred - and that almost always is the non-vanilla option, because of the large variety of choice.
    So, on that note, we can see that if the concept of the vanilla coaster is dying, it's not a bad thing. But maybe, it's not dying, and the concept of a vanilla coaster is fluid - perhaps what defines 'vanilla' changes as coaster manufacturing improves. For example, launches are a very common feature these days on rides, and are incorporated a lot more naturally than they used to be. It is far from unusual to see launches used on coasters with lift hills, and the launch is not as much as a gimmick 'one hit feature' of a ride (unlike with, say, Stealth, where the launch pretty much is the ride). So maybe vanilla coasters have naturally developed to include launches, thus greatly expanding what defines one. Maybe the gimmick of vertical or beyond vertical drops is not really that much of a gimmick, and just an extra feature available due to advancements in technology. Really and truly, is it just picky of me to call Gerstlauer Eurofighters such as Saw a non-vanilla coaster? Probably. So, again, that expands the rides defined by a vanilla coaster. With inclusions such as these, the concept of a vanilla coaster is most certainly not dying. Even rides inverted coasters are pretty common these days, though to call it a type of vanilla coaster in my eyes would be rather extreme in my opinion, it is perhaps a 'chocolate coaster', in that it is common, but not the most basic.
    One final point to finish - maybe all of this just doesn't matter. So what if a certain type of roller coaster design is becoming less commonly built? There's still plenty of good coasters types out there, and plenty of good coasters to be ridden. Some types of roller coasters have bitten the dust in the past, such as 'pipeline coasters', and some types never really caught on, such as backwards in the dark. Other types never rethinking / extra work done to them before they catch, as can sort of be seen with 'Winged roller coasters'. Maybe the concept of a vanilla coaster dying is in no way a bad thing; it just shows a natural development in the roller coaster industry, and for all we know, they could come back into fashion before we know it..
    So, that's it really. I had no idea where this would be going, so no idea if the trail of thought of this seems logical in any way. To be honest, even though this is finished, and this was a 'topic' I've thought about for a long time, I don't even have an idea of what I've concluded. I've argued it is possible that vanilla coasters are dying, but in the Golden Ticket 2012 Awards (one of the more reliable roller coaster rankings I've seen), the Top 10 steel roller coasters all fit my original definition of a vanilla coaster. So, maybe, even those aren't dying? But who knows? I guess what I finish off with saying is that the roller coaster industry is developing in so many ways that sometimes it is forgotten that all is need when it comes to the actual roller coaster is trains on a well-designed, fun track layout.
  7. JoshC.
    Regularly with new projects in the UK, and even some internationally, are compared to Nemesis; Alton Towers' map-defining roller coaster. It's natural really when you consider that Nemesis is pretty much in every enthusiasts' top 10 coasters / rides, and usually near the top as well, and that it's been ranked even as a top 10 roller coaster in the world at one point/ So, with new projects, there's always talk of 'Will it be better than Nemesis?', 'Will it do a Nemesis?' and so forth. But what exactly is 'doing a Nemesis', and we will ever see 'The Next Nemesis'?
    Now, for one reason or another, SW7 has avoided the 'Next Nemesis' hype. Maybe because of it being a Gerstlauer, some are being 'snobbish' towards it, in that they feel a Gerstlauer could never be as good as the mighty B&M that is Nemesis. Maybe it's because people have been more focused on the elements, specifically any world first / world beating elements it may or may not contain. Maybe it's because people are more concerned if the ride will open on time before they start thinking what it'll be like. Or whatever. I'll talk about this a bit a later.
    So, to try and explain a bit better what on earth I'm on about, let's look at Swarm. Big, shiny new B&M hits the UK for the first time in nine years. We get the slightly unoriginal end-of-the-world, alien theme. Already, when we compare Swarm to Nemesis, their stories are of a similar style. Unknown alien, fear for our lives, we must ride it; to but it simplistically. Both are well styled to show this. Nemesis has its pit, and whilst this isn't particularly theming, it is well landscaped and well styled. Couple it along with the theming, and we have a brilliant style and tone created. The same with Swarm - the amount of theming makes you feel like you are in a disaster area, a crash scene, and that you're under attack.
    During construction, and possibly even after the ride opened, I am pretty certain that members on this forum have said that The Swarm is 'Thorpe's Nemesis'. However, very few have gone as far to say they prefer Swarm to Nemesis (me being one of those few), and next no one, after Swarm opened, has said that it is the 'Next Nemesis'.
    Now seems like a good time to say what exactly 'doing a Nemesis' is:
    - The first thing which 'the Nemesis' is is unexpected. With most major rides, they scream themselves at you saying 'LOOK AT ME I'M SCARY!!'. Nemesis does not do this. It hides away in its pit, and it's not until you are right up close that you appreciate what exactly goes on during the ride. Even then, you have to do some exploration, usually in the queue line, just to get the full picture. Something which I think Nemesis does perfectly is be unassuming. So, for a ride to 'do a Nemesis', it must be unassuming in some way. Now, what that way is something up for question. As said, Nemesis is unassuming due to how well it is hidden and the way in which it conceals itself from the public. It's been clear with some other rides that they've tried to be unassuming as well to some way as well. Saw's layout is done in such a way that it's hidden from the plaza, and it's only when you're in the queue line that you realise what the outside section consists of. Then it's got the inside section as well. Th13teen is done in a similar respect, except the outdoor section is MUCH more concealed, and then of course there's the secret indoor section. We again can assume that SW7 has a concealed indoor section, which will in some way be unassuming. So there are indeed many ways in which UK coasters have tried to copy from Nemesis, in that it is unassuming, but they have all failed to one degree or another.
    Coasters with indoor sections, though unassuming to a degree, more have the thought of trying to shock / surprise you. Th13teen was designed in a way to 'shock' riders; so that anyone expecting a coaster where you leave a station, go round a track and return would be in for a surprise. Saw's indoor section was designed to frighten you, but really, with a coaster that is themed to a horror film, you don't expect any less than to be frightened, so it isn't exactly unassuming when you put it like that, is it? Without knowing the full details of SW7's indoor section (if there is one, we don't have a clue what will happen etc.), there's no way to comment. With Saw's outdoor section, it is a little unassuming, yes, but once you're in the queue, you almost begin to know the gist of what happens so much that it loses in unassuming appeal. Whilst the same could possibly be said about Nemesis, I think Saw is affected by this more. Most other UK coasters are a 'what you see is what you get job' in a way, so even if they have little surprises (Colossus' final inline for example), they're not 'unassuming'.
    Of course, being unassuming isn't the only thing which makes Nemesis. Another thing that Nemesis has is a brilliant layout which is paced in such a way that it never gives up. Now then, really layout and pacing is a personal taste. What one person may find as a boring layout or a poorly paced ride, another may think as inspiring. Then, of course, some may prefer certain layouts, certain ride pacing and so forth. However, Nemesis is something that everyone seems to be able to 'agree on'. The ride doesn't lose pace at all; if anything, it just picks the pace up. The layout isn't repetitive, is interest and all the elements gel well together. There really is nothing that goes wrong with it. Even if what Nemesis does isn't your view of a 'great coaster', you still enjoy it. This is something which is very difficult to achieve. So difficult, in fact, that I'd argue no other coaster in the UK has done this. Some people find that coasters are poorly paced in such a way that some of their elements are boring, lacklustre or uncomfortable. There is no coaster that springs to mind where, in the case of enthusiasts I must point out, the general consensus is that there's nothing 'wrong' with the layout, or how the layout is experienced.
    I could carry on with other brilliant features of Nemesis, but I won't. Rather, I'll begin to bring this to a close as to why I think we'll never see the 'Next Nemesis'. Nemesis is something that is truly special. Not many rides have a HUGE pit dug out for them specially and are constructed in the same way that Nemesis was. You can quite easily say that Nemesis in pretty unique. In this way, it pretty much helps it to be unassuming in its appearance. The fact that this is the case, and that it provides an excellent appearance really helps. After all, if you expect excellence and get excellence, you're happy - if you don't know what to expect, and get excellence, you're blown away. A universally accepted 'great layout' is something which is very difficult to achieve as well.
    I'm rather abruptly bringing this to an end now if I'm being honest. This has been a lot more difficult than I thought - really and truly, I don't think there is a way of describing the excellence of what Nemesis is. It just is, and this is the beauty of it. You cannot explain it, which means it will be near-on impossible to recreate it. This is such a shame when you consider Nemesis Inferno, as the 'Next Nemesis' hype must have been so heavily pressed on it, which in hindsight is unfair pressure. So, I don't think that any other ride in the UK, perhaps even the world, will be able to 'do a Nemesis'. For a ride to even be compared to Nemesis positively, or to be labelled as 'That park's Nemesis' should be seen as an achievement in itself. To be near Nemesis is a prize almost, seeinghow nothing can be the 'Next Nemesis'. So, no other rides can ever be a Nemesis or the Next Nemesis - there is only the Nemesis.
  8. JoshC.

    Jogging On

    By JoshC.,

    So, in a contrast to my other blog, these entries will be about all things not related to theme parks. There'll be entries which are a little bit serious and / or personal, like this one, and there'll be some which are just random. Either way, hope you enjoy!
    So, this is going to ramble on for ages, but basically it's about me and exercising / sports. Probably sounds quite boring in honesty, but hey-ho. A few years back, (about 7 or 8 years actually thinking about it; I'm starting to feel a little bit old now... ) I was part of a local fencing club. I was by no means great at it, and only took part in one competition after a few months of taking part and lost every match, but I really enjoyed it - which is what counts when playing sports. I did improve as I went on, but unfortunately after about 18 months, the head coach did a runner from the club; a couple of years later I saw his name pop up in the paper following a court case, and I'll leave that there...
    So, after 18 months, I stopped fencing. The nearest club to me was about 30-40 minutes train ride to me, and was over twice the price for yearly membership; it was just something that couldn't be committed to financially. So, until recently, the only sport I really did was the sports done in PE at school, and that was only until I was 16. The only real exercise I did was cycle my bike (which I enjoy doing, but I just don't do it as regular as I should).
    So, needless to say that over this time, I got quite 'big' - by which I basically mean overweight. Doing little exercise and sometimes 'binge eating' if you will due to many spouts of bullying, it would of course happen. Fortunately, I've never been clinically obese, but I have indeed been overweight, unfit and so forth. Being perfectly honest, I was probably in denial for a period of time thinking that it was just a 'phase' that I would 'grow out of', and would eventually just magically lose weight. To those of you who have met me in real life, or stalked photos of me on Facebook for whatever reason, you would no doubt agree that I am on 'the large side', if you were to put in politely. Whilst I am, naturally, self-conscious about my weight, I have no problems with people who do put it politely / helpfully, as I agree.
    Anyways, back to the topic in hand... As some who read this may know, I started university last month. When joining, I always had the intention of joining one of the many sports clubs and sticking to it - maybe even be part of one of the teams / take part in competitions, just for the fun of it mainly, but also to get back on track with my fitness. There's a fencing club at my uni; all seems great I think; I can get my fitness back on track and get back into a sport I know I enjoy!
    But things are never that easy it seems. I went along to a free taster session, and was getting kitted up after arriving. For those not aware, you need a fair bit of clothing to fence, namely an 'under jacket' (which I forget the name of) and a jacket, basically to make sure you don't get hurt. So, I picked up all the clothes necessary and was fine until the jacket. I struggled to get it zipped up, so asked for some help (it's a 'side-back' zip, for the record - so not the easiest of things to zip up anyway!) from a helper, and was told it was too small for me, so should find a larger size. Turned out I picked out a women's one by accident, tiny bit awkward. So, found a men's one, picked up the largest size and tried again. Again, struggled to get it zipped up, asked for help again, and again to no avail. The sniggers started from the helper and his friend, which was pretty obvious despite their poor efforts of disguising them; I've been here before. And so, I left, with one of my little ambitions of uni left shredded up. Needless to say I was a bit upset really.
    After 7 weeks at uni, I still haven't joined a sports club, and have no intentions to. Instead, as the title suggests, I've taken up jogging. Now, jogging is never really something I've liked the idea of before. It seems so time consuming, laborious and not worth the effort to me. However, a few days after my fencing club experience, a few other people in my halls were planning to start doing some jogging together, so I thought why not, and gave it a try. On my first jog, I did 'badly', if that's possible. Not even 10 minutes of jogging and I was way behind the group, out of breath and needed a break, and so just walked back to my halls. The group jog became a semi-regular thing, about every 3-4 days, and more people would join in, and I was always the one left trailing behind, and cutting short the route.
    Due to the weather getting colder, people's timetables getting less flexible and so forth, the group runs have pretty much fizzled away, and some who have joined sport clubs have used that as their way of keeping active. However, for the past 4 weeks now, I've carried on, just going for jogs by myself. I'd go at my own pace, stop when I needed to stop, cut the route short when I needed to, etc. I jog 3-4 times a week; so jog one day, have the next one 'off'. Just over 2 weeks ago, the breakthrough came when I went for a jog without stopping. Sounds silly I know, but considered I'd always had a break or quit half way through, it gives a real sense of satisfaction, even if it was only a 15 minute jog. From there, I've been able to build myself up, increasing the lengths of the runs and picking up pace as well. Today, my jog involved going up two hills and lasted nearly half an hour.
    I'm really noticing the benefits of it now as well. I've definitely lost weight and this is visible as well - rather annoying now though that all my jeans are a bit too big me.. I 'feel' fitter as well, and things just seem better in general. Whilst I don't really have long term aims as to a specific weight I want to reach, are a specific time of jog I'd like to do or anything like that, I'll just carry on, push myself and sorta enjoy it. In saying that though, one thing I consider on my 'to do list in life' is to run the London Marathon - even though it's a big though and I'm a long way away from even seriously considering that, if I keep at this, then maybe in a couple of years time, that won't seem like such a crazy idea...
    So just as a random, general statement, if anyone is considering doing a bit more exercise, wants to get their fitness up a bit, don't knock the idea of the good old fashioned jog. It's free to do and you feel the rewards of it quickly (oh, and despite how you always feel when you jog, people don't judge / laugh at you when you do it...well, at least I haven't seen anyone do it towards me.. XD). Most importantly though, as corny as it sounds, do something you'd enjoy or will get satisfaction out of doing, otherwise there's no point. I know for sure that after every jog that the sense of satisfaction I feel is what spurs me on to do more.
  9. JoshC.
    This is a blog entry that relates to the hot topic of Fastrack and Fastrack sales. So why's it in here, and not in that topic?
    The aim here is to illustrate how Fastrack sales affect the main queue of a ride, and demonstrate what many bring up - those who pay for the premium service (Fastrack) negatively affect the service of those who do not pay for such a service (those who use the main queue). Unfortunately, this will be quite mathematically thought out, will ramble on a bit, and uses many assumptions, but nonetheless, it will show just how bad Fastrack can affect the main queue.
    Example - The Swarm
    I've decided to use The Swarm as an example to demonstrate this point. Why? Simply put, I think there's enough information to be able to show the point.
    So, first thing first, where am I getting any information from? Well, the following photo from TTP was taken from the Swarm Behind the Scenes event in April:

    The main and Fastrack queues illustrated in this plan seem to resemble that of the real queue lines, so I'll assume that these are the same. As can be seen in the top right corner, there's a bit of rough information about the queues. The main queue is 450m long, and should take 90 mins, whilst the Fastrack queue is 75m long and should take 15 mins (these are presumably guestimates). Strangely, we can see that the Fastrack queue and the main queue have the same length-queue time ratio, in that 5m takes 1 minute to queue. Presumably this would mean the guestimates given don't include the main queue and Fastrack queue working co-currently; in other words, a full main queue would taken 90 mins with no Fastrack whatsoever. The theoretical throughput, again taken from TTP, is 1100pph.
    So then, by the guestimates the park has made, a full queue which takes 90 mins will hold 1650 people (in theory). If we divide this down, we find that 28 people, which is a full train, are in (84/11)m of a queue, to be quite precise.
    Okay, now this is where I have to make a perhaps strange or unrealistic, to a slight degree, assumption. However, for the ease of calculations, and the fact this is only a rough example, it will have to do. So, I will assume that, on average, at any given point, the Fastrack queue is 2/5 full. So, perhaps confusingly, this would according to above information, only be a 6 minute queue - IF there was no main queue. Yeah, sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
    Anyways, being 2/5 full, this adds and extra 30m worth of queue, if we were to literally 'plonk' these people in the queue. So, being 2/5 full, there are (28)*(30)/(84/11)=110 people using the Fastrack queue. Again, unsure of the realism of this, as I don't particularly pay close attention to how many people are in the Fastrack queue, but I think this seems like a reasonable number in my opinion.
    Of course, we would not expect the park to send trains' worth of Fastrack guests round at any one go; it is ridiculous for that to happen. So then, we need to create a form of ratio for the number of main queue guests let in to Fastrack guests let in. Now, I don't know if this is how the park operates it - I'd hope it is something like this though - or what sort of ratio they would use, if they use it. This means I'd have to make a guess, but I'll work out two cases, which are a couple I've mentioned in the Fastrack topic.
    Say we work on the basis of 3:1 (main queue : Fastrack queue). In other words, a quarter of the train is made up of Fastrack guests. (NOTE: This would mean 7 people per train, which seems unrealistic, as most people will be going in even numbered groups, but bare with me). Assuming a linear correspondence to this and the throughput, the 'throughput' of the main queue will be 825pph (three-quarters of 1100). Again, I'll assume that we are in a full queue. So, in the space of 90 mins, a person would move 337.5m (which is three-quarters of the queue length). In another 30 mins, you'd move the remaining 112.5m. So then, if just a quarter of guests are Fastrack users, this adds an extra 30 minutes to a full queue. Following some additional calculations, which I can't be bothered to write up here, I can confirm that if a quarter of each ride is made up of Fastrack guests, the queue time of the main queue increases by a third.
    I'll cut this second case a bit short, but if we work on the basis of 4:1, a full queue would take 112.5 mins (again, to be quite precise). Again, a couple more calculations confirm that if a fifth of the train is made up of Fastrack guests, the main queue time will increase by a quarter.
    Personally, I've always felt that these two ratios are reasonable amounts to satisfy Thorpe's need for money, which is understandable, whilst creating a balance so Fastrack users get their premium service which they've paid for without creating too much hassle for guests. However, this is still quite a large inconvenience for ordinary guests, and it certainly surprised me. This does show how not only does Fastrack offer a premium service, it DOES give a negative effect to those who do not offer such a service.
    Overselling and Sales
    So, now time to see just how many tickets Thorpe could sell according to this. Let's take a 10-5 day, which would probably be expected to be a reasonably quiet day. Say that the Fastrack sales have time slots from 11am until 4:30pm (half an hour in each slot). This gives 5 and a half hours of the 7 hour day where Fastrack is available.
    Taking the first example of 1/4 of each Swarm train being for Fastrack guests, this would mean that a quarter of all guests who ride Swarm in an hour will be Fastrack guests - which is expected to be 275. Multiply that by 5.5 (number of hours in the day where Fastrack is used) and we get 1512.5, round to 1512 for simplicity. This would mean that there's 1512 Fastrack tickets up for sale in a 10-5 day. I don't really know about gate figures or the like, but if we say that there's between 8000 and 10000 guests on such a day, about 15-20% of guests will use Fastrack to get on The Swarm. Reasonable? Again, I'm really not sure, but I was expecting a figure around 10-20%, so I would say so.
    Now then, there are of course many issues with this, which I'll explain a bit more in a bit. However, there's the issue of implementing this is reality - it is unrealistic to assume you'll be able to shift the same number of tickets per hour all day, every day. I believe Fastrack works on a half-an-hour basis, so this means that there's about 137-138 tickets for each of these slots, (which is just over the above assumption that at any given time, on average, the Fastrack queue is 2/5 and has 110 guests waiting). No doubt it's possible to think that, time slots will be more popular and others less popular, which could possibly lead to there being more slots designated to the popular periods of the day, and less to the quieter periods. It does mean that we could easily see a queue time increase by 40% (which, to reiterate the long running point, would mean the main queue for Swarm would be nearly 130 mins - over 2 hours - when it would only be 90 mins with no Fastrack at all...). Another issue, which has been pointed out in the Fastrack topic, is time slots and how they are kept to, or rather how they are not. Say a 'popular' time slot is 1pm, and many people missed their half-12 slot because of eating lunch, waiting for their lunch to go down, had the intention of going at 1 anyway or whatever, a Fastrack queue which can increase a queue time by 40%, can easily increase it by even more. Okay, I'm belabouring on the point here,
    Ways to Solve?
    So, this is where the blog becomes rather similar to the post in the Fastrack topic. Before I carry on, I'd like to say that with the two ratios I looked at, 3:1 and 4:1 Main Queue-Fastrack Queue (ie, a quarter and a fifth of the train full of Fastrack guests), we're looking that on average, about 6 Fastrack guests per train for Swarm. In turn, this will increase the queue by about 3/10, such that a full queue line will approximately take nearly 2 hours, 117 mins to be precise, as opposed to 90 mins. The idea that 6 people per ride are Fastrack guests is a little on the conservative side in my mind in my opinion.
    One way to solve it would be to increase prices and decrease the availability of tickets. This way, the park still make money a plentiful with Fastrack, and will not lose out on cutting tickets. Again, using Swarm as my example, if instead of having 1512 tickets, it went to 1000 (again, to make life easy when doing calculations). So, this cuts the tickets available by a third, meaning we have about 92 tickets available for each slot. Cost-wise, at the moment, if everyone bought a Swarm Fastrack (again, to make life easy, let's just assume there's no front-row Fastrack and all tickets are £5), then 1512 tickets in a day would create just over £7560. If we cut tickets by a third, and raise the cost by £1 (a fifth), meaning people would pay £6 for one Fastrack, which no doubt people will willingly pay, they earn about £6000, losing £1560. Now, I guess one great thing for the parks is Fastrack will pretty much be all profit - ticket printing costs are low, and it won't require many, and in some cases, any, extra staff on rides. So, I'd assume that what is quite a large change in money earnt won't stop profits, just decrease them. However, I'd be quite confident in saying that if the park were to advertise 'Fastrack tickets are limited all day and certain time slots sell out quick!' or something, people will happily part with their money even if the cost has gone up and, dare I say, I think the same would happen if a Swarm Fastrack cost £7.
    A couple of other options would be to implement just one of these without the other; either just outright increase prices, or outright decrease availability. The former of these two options means more money for Merlin, but possibly less people willing to pay if it's not as premium as they expect (ie - having to pay a large-ish amount to queue for a period of time which they'd judge as not worth the additional cost). However, we have seen prices slowly creep up over the years, and I believe that this will continue and prices will naturally get a bit more expensive, especially with the packages. The latter of the two means a full out decrease in profits for Merlin, which in terms of a company, is a bad thing. Not to say that they would never do it, but I can't see it being considered, or considered to a degree such that it would be noticed.
    A different and, in my eyes, most sensible and realistic idea would be to be stricter with the time slots. I guess Fastrack tickets have half an hour time slots, and it states on the ticket 'To be used within 30 minutes of the time printed on this ticket'. Yet, by the sounds of it, as long as you arrive after your time, it's fine. Why not actually enforce such a thing? Well tickets are sold, tell the guests verbally 'You have to use it within 30 mins of the time printed or you can't use it' and print it on the ticket, along with 'no refunds'. That way, they still make their money, and people have been warned - surely unless there's a valid reason for missing it (stuck on a ride, breakdown extending queue length and so forth), it's not the park's fault, so why should they have to refund it? The issue is of course people aren't always great with time management, especially if they've never visited a park before, so this may be a bit harsh / need refining.
    Another thing I'll briefly mention is the Fastrack packages. How exactly do they work? Is there a specific time slot for them and how does that work? Maybe they can designed so that they're as strict to times as possible, whilst still giving enough lee-way? I really can't comment much on this, and can't think of much to say seeinghow I've never had any experience with the way the packages work.
    So, that is that. Fastrack has a negative effect on the main queue line - fact. However, there's an issue with everything that I've gone through. I've been concerned with the queue length, queue time, etc. of the main queue, but mentioned nothing about how long the Fastrack queue will actually take. This is something I won't actually try to work out at this stage, but may do it at a later date. However, if it turns out that this leads to the Fastrack queue being not-so-fast, then all of this is pretty much...complete twaddle and everything I've modelled would need refining. I'll also point out again that I've made many assumptions here for the sheer ease of calculating this, so there will be things such as 'Hey, that's unrealistic, that would never happen', but hey-ho, life carries on..
    Thanks for reading this and hope I haven't been babbling on about complete rubbish all the time. As said, if anyone sees any mistakes / problems with this, just say, as I may well have made a silly mistake somewhere. For now, that is well and truly that!
  10. JoshC.
    The introduction of Thorpe's new maze to Fright Nights this year has been quite a hot topic. Since 'The Passing' was announced, many were left fearing (or, depending on your views, hoping!) that their underwear would be stained brown after going through a maze which puts a bag over your head and simulates your death.
    However, reviews have been mixed, with some feeling as though it is not worth the additional charge, feeling as though there's many wasted opportunities, whilst some - like myself - like the attraction, but do appreciate that there's room for improvement. This entry is all about what exactly I think these improvements need to be, and how Thorpe could go about, realistically, doing this.
    Firstly, the maze's story isn't conveyed well at all I found. There's a brilliant section on the park's site (here: http://www.thorpepark.com/frightnights/?horror=the-passing) which outlines what 'The Passing' is all about, but I want to focus mainly on this section:
    We then couple this in with the maze's tagline, 'It begins with death', and it very well seems as though we are executed and die very early on in the maze.
    The first scene I do like, as you are pretty much read your rights and told that you will be executed. However, a couple of tweaks are needed I think. Firstly, we start the maze off already as guilty - there is no trying of us for our crimes. Perhaps a mention outside the maze during the safety talk could be given, such as "When you enter the maze, you'll be treated as a convicted criminal and have a bag put on your head." This way, it helps tie it all together a little better, and helps make the safety talks, which can sometimes be a bit boring, a bit more interesting (à la Experiment 10). Next off, get rid of the photo bit. Whilst they've tied it in with the maze story a bit, it's just not necessary, is silly penny-pinching in my eyes and just doesn't work. Also, it ruins the feel a bit at the end; after I die, I really hope I don't come across a photo booth selling a photo of my last moments... At a push, I would settle for a compromise in that the photo bit is done in smaller groups (2-3) and serves as a 'prison shot', in a way that would make it act as documentation for official purposes or something. This would not be ideal in my opinion, but if the park really wants it that bad, I think it would just work a bit better.
    Another gripe of mine is the walls in the first couple of scenes. They look very cheap, very quick and very rushed. In honesty, the morgue ones don't even look that realistic (something which I perhaps at first wasn't too concerned by, when the first picture was released, but hated it when I was in there. Moreover, there were others I heard commenting / laughing at it). The thing is, this can be quite easily remedied with a little bit of work. Considering what they're working with in that tunnel, the fake-ness of it really isn't that bad - there's no other alternatives really. However, they can add to it. Body parts stuck onto the wall to make it look like some bodies are 'sticking out' of their drawers, or perhaps even a bigger prop which is meant to represent a body, perhaps of a small child, on a table (meant to represent, in essence, a fully pulled out drawer). It would work well in setting the scene and just be a bit darker then it currently is. Perhaps the latter of these two is a bit unrealistic due to the logistics of the tunnel, but I just feel as though a fake body / body parts will work well there, and can be done quite easily.
    Now then, the actual bags. When I first found out about the maze, my thoughts were that it was going to be a bag that you could not see through at all, but it would only be on for a short period of time. However, I'm glad that this is not the case as I think what we have is more effective. With the darkness around, it is hard to see through the bags; restricting vision I found - for me - to a mere foot or two in front of me. For the entirety of the maze, this becomes disorientating and worrying. I think that the only thing which needs sorting with the bags is the speakers - I think I had troubles with mine in the sense that they moved out of place. I guess this is more just something which needs a bit of a think, so that they always stay in place when they are used. No doubt this is something being sorted out as they go along due to the whole idea being a new concept to the park.
    Now then, the actual simulating of death. First things first, here, I will work on the assumption that the tunnels in the maze signify your burial, the actual 'maze section' is the afterlife where we are tormented for our crimes whilst trying to signify redemption, and the scene post collection the certificate of death shows that no matter what, we will not rest in peace and be tormented for eternity. This seems to be what they are going for, so I'll stick with it. I quite like Maxy's idea that he blogged about, with a firing squad, though I had something much different in mind. I've always thought of being hung as the most gruesome way to be executed, and think there's a chance it could be played with here. As far as I remember, the bags on your head are quite large, and in one way or another, cover your throat to some degree. Personally, I think this could be taken advantage of to 'hang' each person. Unfortunately, my idea would quite probably have to cut the video scene which follows the bag being put on your head. As, for whatever reason, I missed that scene, I don't know significant that scene is, though people do speak about it as a form of highlight I guess, so at the moment, it's a case of leaving it down to those who have experienced it as to whether it would make the overall experience better, or whether the video scene could still be incorporated. Anyway, enough rambling on about that bit, here's my idea:
    The bags are put on our heads in the morgue section, and once everyone has had this done, they are ushered out. Actors then stop you and, put some rope around the bottom of your bag, where you throat is, putting pressure on it so that you know it's there. This would only have to be done for a couple of seconds and, if executed properly (pun not intended!) would not cause any injury and create a real shock.
    Assuming that there are ten people (maximum) in a group, two actors could quite easily do this, with one of them being the one who puts the bag on your head. Hopefully I've explained that the way I'm imagining it, but even if I have, no doubt there'll definitely be concerns about safety / H&S passing it. Whilst I have no knowledge on what H&S would or would not pass it, I would say that there would have to be a mention about it on the safety announcement about it (ie you will have a bag put on your head and be subject to a hanging simulation, but you will not be hurt). Also, the bags would have to cover the person's throat and have sufficient padding, which may require some form of modification to the bags. Whilst I may be dreaming in la-la land here, I do think it is possible to achieve this to some degree, but even if there's not, there needs to be a better way of simulating death, and as previously said, I do like Maxy's idea and that would work well (and be logistically easier, more realistic and quicker than my idea).
    Now then, the tunnels. These are an absolutely brilliant idea and executed very well. As they are, they a brilliant. My only small grumble would be that they perhaps go on for a little too long, which has meant the time in the actual maze section can feel a little short. As I say, only a small grumble, but that can easily be remedied in the maze section itself, and length doesn't have to be everything. Also, are there any smells in the tunnels? I had a cold at the time, which restricted my sense of smell, but I do think a smell in there would be very effective, whether it was of dirt (to signify being buried) or of sweat or something (sweat equating to fear, which is mentioned in the description, and not really being a pleasant smell in itself).
    As for the maze section, many have grumbled about the lack of theming / similarities to Hellgate. However, I don't think it's that bad. Though, I don't think the main maze reaches its full potential. With restricted vision, there's plenty of opportunity for a different type of scare, be it a bit more psychological or utilise your senses of touch / feel. I found myself regularly putting my hands in front of me / on the walls to help guide myself along the way. Now then, if they could in some way make so of the walls unpleasant to touch, or just make it feel 'un-wall-like', it could help create a sense of unease. Then the actors themselves need to take advantage of the fact people's peripheral vision is pretty much cut off. Hiding to the side, tapping people on the shoulder, only to disappear again - there's real opportunity to make people question their senses and make them feel really uneasy, which is when most people will be vulnerable to scares. Again, it's the idea of a psychological scare, making people fear what could happen, as opposed to what is happening - I find that to be the scariest thing. It would also stop scares being too samey, which was one problem I had; it was all too much of a similar scare with each actor. Varying it up a bit will help so much. Another thing which I think could work well in the maze is some an air effect or something similar. It would likely be completely unexpected due to the lack of sight and something which can target the body to make people feel vulnerable all over; after all, when you have a bag over your head, that's what you are most concerned about, as opposed to the rest of your body.
    Now then, the fake ending is great, and should be kept just as it is. As for the bit after it, I'm really not sure what is best for that bit. Personally, I think it needs to be a bit longer actually, in that you go past the UV lights, then go through a bit which is quite dark, then a corridor which gets darker and darker, before reaching a 'dead end'. This would be a great chance for an actor to create a scare, and perhaps even a lighting effect or something could be utilised. Personally, I think if the photos were scrapped, the maze / post-certificate section could be made slightly longer, which can only be a good thing.
    So, that's pretty much it. I did like 'The Passing' on my visit, though naturally, being a new venture for Thorpe, it was always going to need some work. Hopefully the maze continues to improve this Fright Nights, as by the sounds of it, it had improved from the first weekend to the second weekend, when I went, and that it becomes a regular addition to Fright Nights which improves and becomes a solid addition.
  11. JoshC.
    With Fright Nights, Scarefest and all other things Halloween drawing ever nearer, I guess it's time for some Halloween-themed blog entries!
    Dead End was seemingly a one-off scare zone that hit Fright Nights in 2010, and Thorpe's first attempt at a scare zone since about 2002 / 2003, when the event first started out. Located on the pathway next to Zodiac and The Crust, it was perhaps a typical Merlin scare zone, in the sense that it wasn't technically a scare zone, but rather a set route with a very specific entrance and exit. In essence, it was basically a specific scare path, which was possibly one of the reasons for it's bad public response, but more on that later...
    Dead End had a rather interesting theme, revolving around a ride graveyard where a contagious virus struck, leaving the undead lurking in the shadows. For a scare zone, that in itself is rather in depth, and even when you compare it to some mazes (Asylum and Se7en, for example), the back story is a bit more detailed.
    Lasting only one season, it quite obviously just wasn't popular enough. The theming used was perhaps inappropriate for a scare zone, varying from an old Zodiac ride car to old Thorpe Farm signs and Miss Hippo Fungle Safari statues. There was also some other bits and bobs, such as Sun Scream theming. As anyone can tell, none of this is particularly scary - yet, it does work well with the whole 'ride graveyard' thing. However, one of the issues with this is that most of the general public probably will not appreciate this. For a guest who walks up to the scare zone's entrance, and sees a sign saying 'DEAD END TERROR ZONE', along with loads of 'keep out' signs and fake barbed wire around, they will not expect to be walking into a sort of graveyard full of old rides. This in turn means that guests may laugh at the idea itself, and when you make guests laugh at and not with an attraction, it spells trouble.
    Another thing was the idea of it all. This scare zone was not a scare zone; it was a scare path - much more like a very short scare maze. This is something that the UK Merlin parks (I'm unsure about other Merlin parks) seem to not understand - a scare zone should not have a set path! The word zone suggest a form of area, a plaza or extended walkway region, which you are free to explore as much as you like. However, with Dead End, it was not like this. It was very much like a scare maze, in that you get told when you could and could not go in, and there was little chance to explore - you had to follow the very restricted path and were pushed through the pathway. This idea gives mixed messages about the whole attraction. If it is meant to be a scare zone, and that's what you go in expecting, how do you feel when you get pretty much ushered through a pathway like a very short maze? Short changed is the likely answer. This in turn lead to many criticisms that the attraction was "too short". Perhaps it might be me, but surely a zone should never have a criticism of being "too short", but rather "too small"? What I'm trying to get at is that, simply put, Dead End was too much like a maze, and compared to the other mazes and how it was marketed, it never stood a chance in comparison, no matter how much or how little people enjoyed it. Yes, I except the issues with space and fitting in a chicken run and all the other logistical reasons, but Dead End seemed to not bother to try and be a zone, but instead just accept that it should try and be as much like a maze as possible.
    No doubt that people in general just weren't very impressed with it either. The actual given back story didn't make much sense with the actual attraction (yes, there was old stuff from 'dead' rides and attractions, but there's no virus outbreak it seems, and why would people be there anyway?). The layout itself was just like a cattlepen pretty much - walking from side to side, and turning, which perhaps left itself to be rather samey after a while, and lead to predictable scares. There was no real highlight which everything could say 'Wow, THAT bit was amazing!" after they left. Dead End was just sorta there and didn't have a defining feature which is needed by any scare attraction really.
    So, I've highlighted a couple of reasons why it may not have been liked, and no doubt critics of the attraction will likely agree with at least one of these points. However, I again seem to go against the general consensus and was quite a big fan of Dead End, despite being very sceptical about it. Here's my original thoughts after going in the scare zone on opening night:
    A highly positive review. Though perhaps I'd retract the "better than any of the mazes" bit, it was a very enjoyable experience. The attraction utilised LOADS of smoke, especially at the beginning section, making it rather difficult to see to say the least. This meant that the first scare moment was achieved more by being disorientated more than anything else, which is a great way to start any scare attraction in my mind - just look at Experiment 10 for example. There was also a lot of flashing lighting as well; again, it worked incredibly well as it helped create a sense of disorientation throughout the experience, whilst also keeping it dark - which is half the point of the thing.
    Perhaps it was the fact I had low expectations for this that I rate it highly, as it really did keep me entertained. Even if I wasn't scared, which some may argue should be how a scare maze is judged, but let's not go into that this entry, I did appreciate everything that happened. Also, as said in my original 'review', I had a very enthusiastic actor on both of my first goes, which always helps. The fact that she recognised me on my second go and singled me out does make me think she knew I wasn't particularly scared by any stretch of the imagination, but knew I enjoyed it, and helped make me experience better. This is what a scare zone should be about it my mind - people having freedom to explore, but actors being there to stop you / ensure you only explore certain parts. I remember being at the end of attraction for a good minute at least (perhaps longer than the entire attraction lasted!) on my second go, due to a great attraction with that specific actor, whilst she still did interact with others.
    Dead End, for me, had two downfalls in the end. The first is the size, meaning it wasn't able to cope with the numbers. Being a pathway, and a small-ish one at that, it wasn't meant to be enjoyed by the masses all at once. It's for a few people at a time. I do think one of my fears came true, in that when it's busy, it just wasn't as affective. Many times during the busier days, people had to wait to go in, which for a scare zone - in my mind - should just not be the case. Again, this perhaps create in people's mind the view it will be more 'maze-like' than anything else. Had it being a literal zone, when people could go in and out whenever they wanted and have been free to explore, it would have been much more preferable.
    Another downfall, which really disappointed me if I'm honest, was how in later days of Fright Nights, the actors wore cheap-looking monster masks. It added literally NOTHING to the theme, nothing to the story and perhaps made the actors worse - they could try and use the mask to shock people, as opposed to try and scare people. No scare attraction at Thorpe should have to resort to using cheap and tacky masks which look like they can be brought at Poundland, as it makes it feel like zero effort has been put in. Not only that, but it isn't scary, it's laughable.
    So, when it comes down to it, I really enjoyed Dead End. It had its flaws, yes, but doesn't everything? Perhaps from my over-cynicism before going in, I was setting myself up to be pleasantly surprised, but many others with low expectations felt that they weren't met, which I guess is the way the cookie crumbles.
    I just now wish that Thorpe would create another scare zone. Dead End was a very cheap attraction; I don't think that can be doubted. I just wish, however, that Thorpe would perhaps not be too scared to do another. Put in the time and effort, and they can create something which will be enjoyed by the majority, as opposed to the minority. Last season, and quite probably this season, there's roaming actors around the park, which is a great touch. Even if they don't scare most, many people enjoy them - for example, the clowns were a HUGE hit last season, and really helped create a nice atmosphere on park. Hopefully this season we can see escaped prisoners and such roaming around, causing havoc and what not.
    But why stop there? Why not have a dedicated zone specifically where certain prisoners and criminals are lurking around? Why not have a few 'prison cells' together, where we see prisoners get locked away, only to escape yet again? Perhaps some sort of 'base' for the actors as well, it would create a very nice zone where there's lots of interactivity and a good chance for scaring. Perhaps do it near the Lost City flats, and there's some space there which can lead to creating a zone to be explored, whilst giving enough opportunity for a chicken run or whatever else.
    Perhaps this specific example isn't realistic enough. However, the general idea of a scare zone with some thought in should not be. Mazes are great at a Halloween event, and roaming actors are also brilliant, but a scare zone specifically designed to be explored more in detail than the rest of the park with actors is the way forward to creating a overall, high quality Halloween event at Thorpe Park.
  12. JoshC.
    Back when I was about 8 or 9, I visited Gulliver's World (Warrington). The trip was unplanned really, and only lasted a couple of hours (well, from 10 til after lunch). However, the one thing that has always made me remember this trip is The Antelope - one of only 2 wooden coasters to be built in the UK in the past 50 years.
    At the time of riding, I'd never heard of Antelope before (heck, I'd only heard of Gulliver's Warrington a couple of days before my visit!), nor had I heard any reviews of it. I literally knew nothing about it, other than it was made from wood and "looked fun". I was given the front row, which excited me. After coming off, I must have had a huge smile on my face, as I really enjoyed it, and still remember it fondly to this day. Hey, it's even featured in my top 10 roller coasters in the past (though, bare in mind my roller coaster count stands at 22, all of them from the 4 UK Merlin Parks and Gulliver's...).
    Now then, recently I searched the coaster up on Youtube, to find a POV of it. Seemingly I've been in luck, with Coasterforce very recently adding a front row POV:


    (Credit to CF, of course)
    If you watch that, and have never been on it before / haven't been on it for a few years, you'll probably have the same reaction as me - "what on earth is that!?". Even if you appreciate the fact that POVs don't show rides at their best, and that this is a family ride, the ride still looks rather poor. It's poorly paced, has an uninspiring layout and in general seems a bit weak. As the video description says, there was meant to be a water splash effect at the end, but the ride would not have completed the course, which to me suggests the ride as a whole was somewhat poorly designed as well.
    So, why did I enjoy this ride so much? More importantly, why did I continue to rate this ride so highly for so many years?
    Firstly, I guess you could say the circumstances were one reason for enjoying this. I was young, and went to a theme park unexpectedly. Being a fan of theme parks even then, it was a huge excitement for me. Not knowing anything about the ride, and being quite small, it looked so big, so intimidating and so exciting. Needless to say, I was going to enjoy everything I went on, regardless of the quality.
    Furthermore, it was my first wooden roller coaster. I personally think that a person's first wooden coaster will always hold something 'special', as they are so different to steel coasters, and have a completely different experience. Had this layout been exactly the same but made from steel, I probably would have been, like most, unimpressed or, at best, disappointed. Also, as this to date remains the only woodie I've been on, I really have no comparisons to make between this and other wooden coasters. Perhaps this is the worst example of a woodie ever, but because it was a different experience which I'd say no steel coaster I've been on can replicate for me, I have a fond rating of it. This could quite possibly be why I've rated it highly for so long.
    Finally, despite the uninspiring layout, from when you first look at it, I remember there being a small drop which you couldn't see from off ride; needless to say, it took me by surprise. Much like many coasters that use surprise drops you can't see, Antelope did have one of these. I remember talking about *that* moment after the ride, and it being the highlight of the ride. Now, I can't actually remember where exactly this was on the course, which is a shame, but at the same time, interesting.
    Another thing I'd like to bring up now (and probably will mention in other entries / dedicate an entry to) is perhaps how this is an example of 'enthusiast snobbery'. Though I haven't ridden many coasters, or been to many parks, I would still consider myself as a theme park enthusiast to some respect. What that means exactly will be different to people, but to me personally, I see it as having an interest not only in riding rides and attractions, but an interest in the operations and running of them, the development of projects, manufacturing and designing rides and the quality of rides. This last point raises the issue which I perhaps worry about - rides are very subjective things; people enjoy different things and hence one person's good ride may be another's terrible ride (something which to a degree was highlighted in my previous entry about Saw), yet as an enthusiast, judging 'how good' a ride is is the norm it seems.
    As I said earlier, the Coasterforce video shows a "ride...(which) looks rather poor. It's poorly paced, has an uninspiring layout and in general seems a bit weak.". These are the words of an enthusiast. However, from the eyes of the non-enthusiast child of me, it put "a huge smile on my face". Whilst I cannot pass any further judgement on the ride until I ride it again (if I ever get the chance, that is), it strikes me that as I've become more of an enthusiast, I've perhaps lost the very thing that made me an enthusiast in the first place - the innocent enjoyment of a ride. If this is the case, can I really say that all the views about The Antelope are in any way valid, or even worthwhile?
    I won't leave you with a rating of the ride, due to reasons outlined above, but instead just that thought...
  13. JoshC.
    Back in 2009, we were graced with arrival of a new coaster at Thorpe, yet again breaking the overall investment the park had spent on one attraction - £13.5 million, beating Stealth's £12 million (which, as we know, has now been beating again by The Swarm's overall investment).
    Before Saw - The Ride opened, fans were buzzing from excitement, and were hoping that the ride would perhaps be the park's best themed attraction, or at least the best since Tidal Wave opened in 2000. After all, Euro-Fighters are relatively cheap ride systems, and £13.5 million is a lot of money to spend. To top it off, the ride featured a dark section, and although many would've known about the surprises inside from the ride's plans and construction, everyone was hoping for something 'special'.
    Now, many people don't like Saw, for one reason or another. I am not one of those people; from my first ride, I loved it. It's by no means perfect, and it's not going to win any awards for the best roller coaster in the world - heck, it wouldn't win best coaster in the country. However, that doesn't mean it's not good; in fact, it's really good. But why do I think that?
    Firstly, the layout. The UK is often criticised for having short coasters, and whilst Saw isn't exactly long, it has a decent length and ride time. Not only that, but it is well paced - it's not a ride where everything happens at one point in the ride, then the rest of the ride is a bit of a filler. There's something interesting and exciting during the whole of the course.
    The indoor section is very good; for many, it's their favourite part of the ride. The hidden drop catches everyone off guard - even when I knew it was coming on my first ride, it still surprised me; the steepness of it! It's an element which really does pack a punch. After a quick MCBR, the barrel roll is highly enjoyable. Going through it rather slowly is a key to it's success; not only does it give you a chance to see the theming (talked about later..), but you really do 'feel' the inversion; you are lifted out of your seat, and put against the restraints, only to be plonked back on your seat. My trouble with many inversions is that they aren't always memorable, or that you don't realise you've been inverted. This is really one of those inversions which I do like.
    As for the outdoor section, it is completely different. Euro Fighters (and Gerstlauer in general) are known for quick, brash and intense ride experiences; this is exactly what you get. The trademark vertical lift is something I like, and can discomfort those who have never experienced one before. My least favourite part of the ride is actually the drop; the beyond vertical gimmick doesn't do it for me; every ride I feel as though I'm experiencing a 90 degree drop, followed by a 10 degree drop, followed by a curved drop in a matter of a second or two. It just doesn't feel worth it, especially for the roughness and head banging that occurs from it. The Immelmann loop and following turn are good elements which demonstrate the effective use of the 2x4 cars which work so well. The air time hill is my favourite one I've been on thus far; you really do feel the forces and the air time on it; much more than any of the other (few) coasters I've been on. Following the next MCBR comes my favourite part of the ride. The drop of the MCBR is amazing; gets me every time! Even though you can see it coming, it catches me off guard; which is why I enjoy it much more than the indoor drop. The dive loop is completely insane as well.
    Then you've also got the theming and effects. The station building is meant to be a derelict warehouse, and that's exactly what it looks like. Sure, it's the typical 'We're going to build a derelict, ruining theme so we don't have to maintain it', but it does work in this case. The outdoor queue section is okay, though the traps themselves are pretty uninspiring if I'm honest. The overgrown plants, however, are a touch which works well with the theme. The indoor queue wreaks of missed opportunities in my opinion; there's chance for much more than a couple of messages from Jigsaw. The station building is nicely styled I would say; but the major trouble with it is there's too much natural light. From where the cars come in after the ride to the slits between the panelling; too much natural daylight comes through. It ruins the effect and theme, which I think is a shame.
    The effects during the ride are good as well, when working. An effect which is probably not intentional, and possibly the same on many Euro Fighters is the 'safety lights' going out when the cars leave the station. If you're in the second row, for front row of the second car, you see the 3 green lights, which show that the restraints have locked, go off. If I'm honest, it worried me a bit - I was not expecting it to happen and thought there was a fault for a split second... The Billy puppet is good and scares people who recognise him, and the swinging axes and needle pit are brilliant. The shooting arrows feel like a bit of a wasted opportunity in my opinion; they're boring, and distract people who could be listening to Billy's pre-talk. I do love Jigsaw's dead body squirting warm water; first time riders are always shocked by that! One thing which I think lets the ride down is the audio, or lack of. Thorpe normally get audio for rides right, but I think they did fail a bit on both this and Saw Alive.
    So, why is Saw disliked by so many?

    The 'roughness'. The most common complaint of Saw I hear from both enthusiasts and the public is that the ride is 'rough'. Now, I personally have no trouble with it; I don't even think it's rough - Colossus is MUCH rougher.. I would call Saw intense, but is that an issue? Some coasters are smooth and elegant, some are intense; it just depends. I would say that the bottom of the main drop certainly does cause head-banging, but from someone who has had neck issues in the past, in all the rides I've had, I can safely say that only once have I had an issue with it. People have different thresholds for intense-rough, and have different likes in what they want their coaster to have, but I would never be able to call the ride 'rough'.
    The hype. At the time, everyone was expecting an epicly themed roller coaster and a truly immersive experience. We unfortunately did not get this, but instead got a 'ride of two halves', with a themed indoor section, and a pretty much unthemed outdoor section, which both offer different coaster experiences. People don't seem to like that for one reason or another, and therefore don't actually concentrate on what they've got..
    The IP. There are many different views on IPs, from not liking them outright, to thinking they do wonders. The trouble is, the Saw IP is dying, perhaps already dead, and there's not that much Saw stuff directly linked in - they couldn't even get Tobin Bell to voice Jigsaw for goodness sake! I think many people who were also disappointed because they thought having an IP will inject loads of extra theming and such into the ride, when in fact it was a rushed idea which basically allowed the use of a name.

    So, I'm actually cutting this a little short if I'm honest. Maybe a part 2 or some sort on continuation will arise in the near future. Basically, long entry short, Saw is actually a really good coaster, despite the fan-hatred. It's only this season that I've realised just how much I like it, and it sits as my second favourite coaster, only behind Swarm. That's right, I prefer Saw to Nemesis Inferno, and just why that is is probably for another entry.
    Saw - The Ride: 7.5/10
  14. JoshC.
    Opening autumn last year, The Bear Grylls Adventure already feels like a forgotten Merlin attraction in some sense. No real fanfare when the attraction opened, and still no advertising, it's a weird scenario. Apparently a big advertising push is coming this spring though, so maybe that will help get the word out there a bit more.
     
    What is it?
    This is one of the hardest questions to answer, but I'll try. BGA is split into several different activities, and you can pay to do basically any combination of these:
    -Basecamp. 4 activities in one: Survival maze, Escape room, Archery and Assault course
    -High Ropes Course. Outdoor free roam high ropes course
    -Climbing. Indoor rock climbing on several different types of wall
    -iFly. Indoor skydiving experience
    -Snorkelling. Self explanatory
    -Diving. Dive in a cage surrounding by animals, including sharks
     
    Basecamp is very much the standard go to option, with maybe one or two extra activities added on. To do all activities is an 8-9 hour day.
     
    I ended up doing this today, opting for Basecamp, the High Ropes Course and Climbing. You choose timeslots for the activities, and we went for Basecamp - 11am, High Ropes - 1pm, Climbing - 3pm.
     
    Bear Tags
    Bear Tags are the big piece of tech for BGA. It tells you where you need to be at what time, vibrates when it's nearly time, acts as a check in for each activity, your key to a locker (lockers are free, as you're not allowed anything with you on any activity), etc. It also acts as a ticket for scanning photos to you too. You can put your card details on there and use it to pay for stuff too.
     
    Ours proved to be temperamental during the day, with one dying half way through, sometimes not vibrating at the right time, not scanning, etc. The idea behind them is nice, so hopefully the technology can work out too.
     
    Basecamp
    Basecamp is the hardest thing to describe, as it's a very mish-mashed experience. You share this experience in groups of 16-20, and is advertised to take 90 minutes, as well as a Bear 'ranger' who guides you round the activities.
     
    You start off with a Survival Maze:
    This is basically like what I'm a Celebrity should have been. It's hard to describe it without giving spoilers, but in short it's a 20 minute guided tour through various challenges and activities, based on certain fears and survival elements. As I say, imagine Thorpe's IAC maze, but amped up a level to actually try and test people.
     
    I'm not quite sure how I felt about it in the end. It's hard to tell whether it's "so bad it's good" or "bad". Our guide was very over-the-top cheesey at times, and again, hard to tell if it made it worse or better. So I finished the first element unconvinced. 
     
    Escape Room
    After leaving the maze and having a photo opportunity (not forced, and you get digital copies included with the Basecamp ticket!), we were then guided around the building towards the escape room. 
     
    The escape room is a 7 minute timed challenge, up to 10 people per team (there's two rooms so no waiting around), which simply requires finding one 4 digit code. The ranger guide gives you a clue at the start, and you have to decode messages, radio clues and writing on the wall to crack the code. Neither team in our group managed it, and it's one of the weirdest escape rooms I've done. I don't like the way it presents clues. 
     
    Rather awkwardly, the escape room leads you to an unthemed, essentially staff area, to get back out.
     
    Archery
    Archery is archery - it's what you'd expect! You're given a very thorough briefing and demonstration, and then get to shoot 10 arrows. It's good fun, well presented and though it's always nice to have more arrows, this felt like a good fair number.
     

     
    Assault Course
    Up until now, the Basecamp experience had been linear and we were guided in a group. After Archery, we were told we were free to do the assault course at 'any time', and you get two goes for it. Basecamp is advertised as a 90 minute experience, we were an hour in and the assault course is 25 minutes, most of which is spent warming up and safety talks. With High Ropes booked for 1pm, we decided to have a lunch break, and then do the assault course later.
     
    We did it at about half 2, and honestly, this is full on! Said to be based off a Royal Marine's assault course, you spend a lot of time before stretching, running on the spot, etc (which in itself was pretty tiring). You're part of a large group, but sent round in groups of 2-4. The assault course is fairly standard fodder - balancing, high/low beams, crawling under nets, climbing up nets, and included a jump over a 6ft wall and ascending/descending monkey bars. You can skip any element you can't do (I tried the monkey bars and failed miserably).
     
    Rather nicely, you're given an anklet which acts as a timer, so you can see your time. I managed it in about 2m40s, which was in the top third of everyone in the group. Fairly happy with that, but it left me proper exhausted!
     
    High Ropes Course
    The High Ropes Course takes place outside, in a stand alone structure which - at its highest - is about 60ft tall. To leave the building, you zipline from above the entrance (themed to a helicopter) towards the course - normally the finale of a high ropes course, but still fun nonetheless!
     
    The course has over 30 different features, spread over 4 levels (and the higher you go, the more challenging the features supposedly get). Despite the odd look, the course was very good fun, and extra challenges were had due to the rain and sometimes quite fast wind! Out of curiosity, I asked if they shut it down in windy conditions, and they said they have a limit, but haven't reached it yet. I managed all but one feature, a particularly tricky spinning log which I didn't fancy due to the weather conditions (and my shaky legs at 60ft!).
     
    You can either get down by walking back down, or doing a death drop - essentially just being harnessed up and jumping from the third level in a very mini bungee jump like situation. Again, that proved very fun.
     
    A nice feature of the high ropes course is you can effectively take as long as you want. 90 minutes is the recommended time (including zipline and safety briefings), but there's no one checking the clock on you. I imagine within reason, you can stay up there as long as you like.
     

     
    Climbing
    Climbing came directly after our go in the assault course. Already with achey arms, and me not having good upper body strength, I knew this wouldn't be great for me. 
     
    The session starts off with 20 minutes of bouldering (low level rock climbing), then 40 minutes of climbing up 8m high walls, of varying difficulties and surfaces. You can pick and choose what you attempt. Despite all my best efforts, and help from the instructors, I simply never got the hang of it. Wasn't totally unexpected, but a shame nonetheless. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like maybe there could have been a couple more very basic / entry level walls? Couple of others in our group struggled too, but ah well.
     

     
     
    Food, Retail and Theming
    There's an onsite restaurant which serves hot and cold food, such as pizzas, nachos, sandwiches, etc. Standard Merlin fodder really, but at a reasonable price, with good value meal deals and AP discount still applicable to them! There's also a shop with BGA and standard Bear Grylls merch. Unlike other midway attractions, like Shrek, the prices are very much in line with theme park prices, and you can get AP discount on it all.
     
    The theming is a weird one. All of the activities are well presented, and within the area there's some very nice themed features and elements. There's good ambient music (the iFly area actually plays the old Air theme!!), and thematic lighting, though perhaps a bit too dim. However, the ceiling is not themed at all, and makes it clear you're in a warehouse. Given you look up quite a bit, it is a bit of an illusion breaker, but something that could be easily - and cheaply - remedied by just some cheap cargo netting! Also, as mentioned, the walkway after the escape room is terrible.
     
    Other Thoughts
    The Basecamp idea is weird. It is advertised very linearly on the website, but the activities are spread out through the attraction, making it feel a bit clunky. Given the space has been built from the ground up, I'd have thought they could have designed it so one activity leads directly to one another. 
     
    It seemed fairly lively in there, and according to a member of staff we spoke to, about 200-300 people do the high ropes course over a weekend, and 150-200 do the climbing experience. Those numbers seem quite low, so it'll be interesting to see how it develops, especially once advertising kicks in.
     
    Cost
    Given all the different options available, the cost very much varies. The basecamp experience is £20, which isn't terrible, and add-ons vary and start from £15 (you have to Basecamp I believe). But there's bound to be offers floating around, and they're experimenting with different offers for Annual Passholders (at the moment, Basecamp by itself is £1 for example). So it can be quite an expensive day (all activities together cost £160), but it's not exactly bad for the variety you get. Even better if you get a special offer!
     
    Overall
    Overall, Bear Grylls Adventure is something complete different, and offers something for everyone. If you're a well-trodden high ropes goer / climber / whatever, those specific probably won't offer much for you, but if not, it's a really fun experience to be able to do a variety of different things. Definitely something worth trying out if it does sound up your street!
    (NB: As phones aren't allowed in the activities and the lighting was low-level, I've just stolen photos off the official website)
     
  15. JoshC.
    First off, I understand that the Blogs feature was introduced with the intention of Trip Reports going here, but I'm still going to continue these sorts of blog entries here and in my other blog from time-to-time (if that's okay of course!)

    Anyways, as most will know - or have worked out - I'm a university student, and I've just finished my first year (woo!). I decided just to do a quick entry just going through what it's been like, the ups and the downs and such, and just give a small insight into 'uni life'. Hopefully it'll be interesting to some, and may even help people who are thinking about going to uni / going to uni this year in some way. Either way, hope you enjoy!

    So yeah, despite missing my offer effectively by two whole grades, I got accepted by my first choice - the University of Warwick, to do Maths. It's regularly ranked in the Top 10 universities in the country, and the Maths Department was this year ranked 23rd in the world. Personally, I don't like the idea of university rankings, as there's no fair way, in my eyes, to rank universities, as many surveys will focus on student satisfaction (and so students could just rate highly to improve post-university prospects), research successes (which has little to do with degrees) or results (and due to the wide range of courses and their difficulties at all the universities, that just seems silly). Nevertheless, it's nice to see 'my uni' ranking well..

    The Maths department is also home to one of the country's more famous mathematicians - Ian Stewart. Not only has he had many successes with his research, he's also a popular science author, with a ridiculous number of books to his name (80 something I think), and has also worked with Terry Prachett on the 'Science of Discworld' books. Whilst he's now retired, he still hangs around the department a lot and gives the occasional talk, and he's always happy to have a little chat with people and sign a couple of his books (which I've taken advantage of). I guess you could say he's one of the 'John Wardleys' of popular Maths. I also found out my Personal Tutor before arriving at Warwick, and after a minute of research, I found his Wikipedia page(!) and it turned out he has had a few prizes for his research - found that a bit daunting to be honest!

    Now, before arriving to uni, I didn't know what exactly to expect. I was moving 100 miles way from home, and whilst I knew 1 person on my course, I didn't really like them, so wanted to try my best to avoid them. So, I was in the usual uni position - moving a long way away from home, knowing no one, not really knowing how to cook, afraid of budgeting properly, as well as being not so confident and having a difficult course looming! I do think some people, especially in the media, forget just how much students have to deal with when moving to uni, and make it seem much simpler than it really is.

    But, strangely, when I had moved in and everything, it all just seemed to work. Everyone was nervous, in the exact same position, and even if they were a confident person, being plunged into that sorta situation brings most people to jelly. One thing which scared me was the fact that I didn't drink, and feared that would hinder my chance to make friends with people / I'd be forced into drinking. That did not happen. A fair few people were similar to me, so it really was no biggie. So, seriously, anyone who's thinking about uni and doesn't fit the 'media-portrayed student' of loving to go out get smashed every night - don't worry, uni is not really like and that, and if you're not that sorta person, you will be fine!

    Now, unlike most unis, Warwick doesn't have a traditional 'Fresher's Week' (ie the first week of first term has no lectures, and you can party and get to know people and stuff). Instead, we have lectures from the start, but have a 'Fresher's Fortnight', where there's loads of special events to help people adjust to uni life, but still have lectures and classes and whatever else. Seems nasty, but that's university!

    So, for my first two terms, I had in the region of 20-24 hours of contact time a week (may not seem a lot to those outside of university, but trust me, it is a lot for university. For example, History students and Warwick have 8-10 hours!). I had 2-4 assignments due a week, which for the most part was just a series of questions. Usually, an assignment would take me 3-6 hours, depending on difficulty and length, and that's whilst working with others. Each assignment counted to each individual module, and each module counts to my overall grade for first year, which was 10% of my overall degree (despite first year for most degrees not counting). So, needless to say, it was essential to do them well! I'd also spend a few hours a week going over notes, writing them in neat, etc. So, some weeks, I could be working up to 55-60 hours a week; even then, I always felt like I 'could be doing more'.

    I'd like to point out that's probably not the norm for your average student (in case anyone is getting a bit scared or put off!). Maths at university is EXTREMELY different to at GCSE and A-Level, and so at any uni requires a lot of contact time to explain and teach everything, and a lot of time outside of lectures to actually understand what you need to. Other subjects tend to have less contact hours (except science subjects, which have lab sessions, which can last several hours at once!), but a lot more reading material to be read in your own time (so whilst people doing History have 8 hours of lectures a week, they could spend 5-10 hours reading and making their own notes, for example). Then they'll have essays and such as well, so probably a rough estimate would be about 40 hours a week working, in theory.

    The third and final term of the year at any uni is defined by one thing - exams. It's a shame that exams are the easiest way to grade somebody (which, after all, is one of the key points of uni - to get a graded degree), as it doesn't always reflect somebody's true potential; whatever level. At least at university, the lecturer will write the exam, rather than a group of old farts in some office, and so reflects what you have been taught directly, but still. So, I had a whole one hour contact time a week with my supervisor, where with 4 other people, we could ask questions on stuff we were stuck on. It wasn't particularly helpful, as there's so much stuff and so little time, and everyone struggles with different things. So, basically, I'd spend all day revising, and about 2-3 evenings a week, I'd relax and watch a film or something.

    When I wasn't working, I'd normally just be relaxing with my flat mates. Normally we'd watch a film or a few episodes from a TV series a couple of nights of a week, play board games, etc., some people would go out a couple of times a week to the Students' Union (personally, I went out about two or three times in the first two terms, and not once in the last term), or pop down to the pub every now and then. It may not sound like much, but you can spend so many hours just doing stuff like this, before realising it's 2am and you probably should get some sleep 'cause of a dreaded 9am lecture!

    When it came to things like shopping and cooking, I was fine with that. I was able to get my weekly shopping bill to about £20-£25, sometimes cheaper, but was still able to have a variety of food, which was healthy as well. More importantly, I pretty much stayed away from all ready meals, apart from an Iceland pizza once every couple weeks (which I'd highly recommend btw - only £1 and absolutely brill!). I was able to find time to cook decent, healthy meals every day, and quickly found myself to really enjoy cooking, and to be pretty decent at it. I did briefly turn into one of those people that takes photos of their food and shares it all over Facebook; I am no longer one of those people thankfully!

    I guess one of the last things to talk about should be results. For those a bit unsure, the classification of results goes:
    -First (at least 70%)
    -2.I: two-one (60-69%)
    -2.ii: two-two (50-59%)
    -Third (40-49%)
    -Fail (less than 40%).

    I was disappointed to find out I'd gotten 56% for my first year, which after all the work I had put in, I felt wasn't a true reflection of my ability. However, I did find that this did include an exam I missed due to breaking my ankle, which for the time being has been scored a 0%. So, when I sit the exam in September, as long as I pass the exam, I'll just sneak in a 2.I (with my grade probably bumping up to 61-62%). Whilst I would have wanted higher, I was hoping for 68%+ honestly, it is something I will take. It was first year of uni, and some modules didn't play to my strengths, and so dragged me down quite a bit. Other years are worth more overall, and I have more choice in modules, so I can focus of my strengths - focus on the positives I guess.

    Well, that ended up being a lot longer than I anticipated - sorry for the rambling, and congrats if you read that all! But yeah, hopefully that has given a bit of insight into the world of being a student. Just a couple of final points - what you tend to hear about university is it's the best time of your life, you'll look back fondly of it, etc., and the media focuses a lot of the partying side of it. However, what tends to be mentioned very little is how hard it can be away from the academic side. University is emotionally draining - you're away from home, and so much is piled on you so quickly at times. If you go to university, whatever you do, wherever you go, it's difficult to cope, and mild depression is more common than you may think. I hate to practically finish on such a down note, but I do remember Benin (I think) saying something similar when the topic of uni was being discussed on the forums before Sidders, Smidget and I started, and I admittedly thought it was an over-exaggeration. However, it's true - university is extremely tough in a personal sense, as well as an academic sense, and there's no way you can prepare for that in my eyes. It's something that's sometimes forgotten in the stress of it all, but I think it's safe to say that, at some point during a student's life at university, there'll be tough moments where you feel you can't deal with uni, for whatever reason, and you need to try and work your way up from what can feel like rock bottom. Though, I guess university is meant to help prepare you for life. And, well, that's life.
    (Again, sorry about the length of this. Really did not expect to ramble on this long! :S )
×
×
  • Create New...