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.

Some alright songs were released in 2012. I've made a list of ten of them, including some that I think are a little bit better than I give them credit for.
AWOLNATION - 'Kill Your Heroes' (from: 'Megalithic Symphony')

AWOLNATION are an odd band. One minute they're happy enough screaming out erratic, borderline psychologically-damaged odes to pyromania and suffering as on 'Burn It Down' and 'Soul Wars' and the next they're plodding along to pop-lite melodies like 'Jump On My Shoulders', complete with la-la-la-ing post-choruses. 'Kill Your Heroes' is a brief reprieve with the extremities of their apparent dissociative identity, happily straddling the fence between throat-shredding wailing and infectious melodic catchiness. The lyrics may come across as too eager to scan as modern-age poetry ("Never let your fear decide your fate/I say you kill your heroes and fly") but the aloof references to carving your own path in life and breaking free from the shadows of idols doesn't stop 'Kill Your Heroes' becoming an easy entry point into the rest of their music. Whilst it's not out and out their best track, it's in this list because it whets the appetite to try out some of their other, better tracks.
Other songs worth listening to: 'Wake Up', 'Soul Wars', 'Sail'.
7/10
The Sound of Arrows - 'Conquest' (from: 'Voyage')

It's never easy to write about this duo, but in short, they're Swedish; they do pop music, and they're ****ing brilliant at it. Ambition and wide-eyed wonder illuminate the red velvet layers of synth-brass on ‘Conquest’, a song focusing on the age-old theme of achieving the impossible and rising against the odds. There's a timeless feel to Storm's lyrics and his featherweight voice; something ardent for accomplishment and celebration that suitably fills every available space it can reach. The song's production is flawless, packed with ideas and subliminal layers but never once feeling over-bearing. Though poppier and nowhere near a 'smooth'-sounding as the majority of the rest of the stunning album 'Voyage' , 'Conquest's tones and textures are rendered beautifully and almost feel alive, billowing gently as the pastel-coloured, metallic melodies translate as softly appealing and commanding at the same time.
Other songs worth listening to: 'Nova', 'Wonders', 'There Is Still Hope'.
10/10
Imagine Dragons - 'It's Time' (from: 'Night Visions')

'It's Time' is the flagship song for Las Vegas-born Imagine Dragons, effortlessly encapsulating everything their music is. Despite being active since 2008 and releasing an EP every year since 2009 (with full LP 'Night Visions' released earlier this year), they've only very recently had some recognition in the UK with 'Radioactive' and 'Hear Me', two songs which barely hit the Top 40 and exist in two different genres that themselves are wildly different from the chiming, stomping, sonic celebration of 'It's Time'. But don’t think that means they’re the type of band who require an Apple product or a low-budget film about coming of age to provide the soundtrack for in order to surface to popular consciousness. Much of 'It's Time's success as a song can be attributed to the band’s ear for a killer hook and lead singer Dan Reynolds’ grounded poetic lyricism, the result being that even though they sing into unpredictable, shifting abysses, the opulence of their music still burns with the expanse and intimacy of a candlelit dinner in the Nevada desert.
Other songs worth listening to: 'Tiptoe', 'Working Man', 'Hear Me'.
10/10
St. Lucia - 'All Eyes On You' (from: 'St. Lucia')

This one's an interesting one. It sounds like something whipped off a B-side released by an off-the-radar artist in the 80's. It's also been used in Hollister & Co. advertising and probably soundtracks the wet dreams of the type of people who eat lentil soup and Instagram packets of fig rolls. St. Lucia aren't ever going to take off and the hipsters will like that, as will I because a lot of everything else that St. Lucia have put their name to could pass as lullabies for the indie market. However, as a momentary blip of redemption, the reserved tone and almost blase delivery to the lyrics on 'All Eyes On You' turn what could otherwise pail as a slow-dancing borefest into a certifiably palatable mix of indie dweebness and knitwear-clad passion.
Other songs worth listening to: 'September', 'We Got It Wrong'.
6/10
The Killers - 'The Way It Was' (from: 'Battle Born')

Let's be brutally honest: this isn't really a Killers song. It's the closest you'll get to a Killers song on new album 'Battle Born' though (unless you consider 'Day & Age' as the pinnacle of The Killers' trademark indie-quirk fanfare, in which case 'Flesh and Bone' has a good chance of buoying the rest of a poor album for you). But whilst the lukewarm 'Runaways' and sleeper-hit 'Miss Atomic Bomb's only distinctions as Killers songs is Brandon's voice, 'Deadlines and Commitments' carries on the theme of family issues and personal identity crises as heard on 'Sam's Town' as vividly as ever.
The song's gentle guitar canter and minor key gloominess serve to establish hackneyed lyrics as an empathetic plea for mutual understanding, supported by a side-helping of wishful thinking, which brings a genuine warmth to the song. The gentle motif at the end of every line marries perfectly with some of the best lyrics on the album.
Other songs worth listening to (from 'Battle Born'): 'Deadlines and Commitments', 'Flesh & Bone', 'Miss Atomic Bomb'.
9/10
King Charles - 'Lady Percy' (from: 'LoveBlood')

Round about 2010, popular chart music shifted into two very different gravitational fields. One has, sadly, prevailed till this day and involved barely-talented label puppets diving headlong into the latest musical technologies and the other, which has dwindled of late, involved returning to rootsier, acoustic sounds. Among the acts to have been picked up on this wave were Mumford & Sons, Laura Marling, Damien Rice, and Noah And The Whale. Birth-child of Prince and Adam Ant, King Charles, was nowhere to be seen though, but that's probably a good thing because after the promising 'Lady Percy' and 'The Brightest Lights', the rest of début album 'LoveBlood' ran like a hipster's paradise, even including comparisons of a loved one to the wax in his mustache.
'Lady Percy' runs dangerously close to making such declarations of devotion to make Ed Sheeran blush, but the pacing, the bluegrass influences and the rustic overtones from the breezy instrumentation of guitars, banjos, steel drums and gospel choirs are combined in a rare stroke of breezy and summery genius for the bequiffed hipster.
Other songs worth listening to: 'The Brightest Lights' (featuring Mumford & Sons), 'Mississippi Isabel'.
9/10
Aiden Grimshaw - 'This Island' (from: 'Misty Eye')

Imagine Moby and Gary Jules had a musical offspring and you'll land right on the money with the sound of 'This Island'. A lot of sulky X Factor runner-up Aiden Grimshaw's music revolves around the same effortless groove and smouldering intensity. After X Factor, Grimshaw disappeared and came back a year and a half later with 'Misty Eye', which serves as just about the gloomiest, lest conventional post-X Factor release ever. 'This Island' is a swirling, hi-fi journey through suicidal thoughts and psychotic murmurs backed by the monochromatic of a Jarrad Rodgers production. Throughout the thematically lead-heavy track about being isolated and cut off from everyone, Grimshaw demands attention and empathy to the point listening to a whole album of such tracks can become one hell of a challenge. But here, Aiden provides a relatable understanding and a fearful reverence of the maddening loneliness that we all strive to evade.
Other songs worth listening to: 'Hold On', 'Is This Love?'.
7/10
Ed Sheeran - 'Give Me Love' (from: '+')

Another soppy one, and from someone who fervently speaks about his hatred for Ed Sheeran's acoustic guitar-wielding bellendery, 'Give Me Love' does something completely unprecedented. Whilst the usual Sheeran simpering is still as prevalent as ever, he's stripped back the awkward metaphors and overly acute observations about love's little trivialities; the cups of tea, the strawberries and the tweeting birds aren't mentioned here; things may get a bit grisly when in the chorus he rolls out the lyrics "We'll play hide and seek to turn this around", but it's worth learning to love it as the song's climax displays the maturer prowess that seems all too rare in Sheeran since the release of '+'. The song slowly transforms from just another Ed Sheeran ballad with improved lyrics into a borderline euphoric flood of passion; the intensity cranked up and Sheeran's vocals impressively pulling off desperation without feeling as cringe-worthy as the thought of him screaming "Love me" might first seem.
Other songs worth listening to: 'You Need Me, I Don't Need You' (version from the 'Small Change EP').
8/10
M83 - 'Wait' (from: 'Hurry Up, We're Dreaming')

If you've not heard M83's 'Midnight City' by now then you've been living in a cave. Most only know it by it's effervescent synths and that hook, but it's use on advertising campaigns and throughout the 2012 Olympic Games coverage should be enough for you to have had it ingrained by now. Follow-up singles 'Reunion' and 'Wait' haven't enjoyed the low-key success of 'Midnight City', but it's not big surprise. 'Wait' is an ambient track, slowly moving through it's duration and occasionally interrupted by Anthony Gonzalez's vocals, at first softly accompanying the delicate strumming until the chorus approaches and he cries with tangible emotion over the spaciousness of the precision-formed production. This song's final two minutes are like musical gold dust.
Other songs worth listening to: 'We Own The Sky', 'Midnight City', ''Lower Your Eyelids To Die With The Sun'.
10/10
There's plenty of other contenders to be fair, and these are by no means the best 2012 had to offer, so don't be boring and complain about chart music be uninteresting. Go find your own music and put Capital FM out of a job.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Welcome to the first semi-serious blog post from me. As the title suggests, I've subsided the music talk for a brief moment to consider a more emotive reflection about why I have the religious beliefs I do. I consider myself atheist, though on paper I am a Roman Catholic and was raised a devout Christian, at least until my father was ex-communicated for a reason none of the members of our family are completely clued-in about. I believe it had something to do with the Parish priest wanting to bless my parents' marriage, despite them having married in a church and in the eyes of God fourteen years previously, so upon denying to sanctify their marriage he ex-communicated them in front of the assembly of Sunday Mass. Pleasant fellow. I went to a Catholic Primary school in which our R.E. classes taught us only what Catholics believed; attended a secondary school with no religious denomination; a 6th Form which was staunchly Protestant and had close ties with the town Abbey; and I'm now attending a University with one of the strongest Anglican support systems in the UK in the Ancient Capital of England, the City of Winchester. So I've met many different angles of belief when it comes to Christianity and yet, since that five-year period with no religious interference during secondary school, I've not been able to reignite any longing for the fear of God to rekindle itself with me.
But unlike most cynics, those who've never had a religious upbringing and Richard Dawkins, I didn't jump to the conclusion of atheism first and then accumulate the knowledge to bring me right back to where I started. I believed in God, Jesus and Satan (sort of) from the start. And also unlike the far more fervent Dawkins, I'm not here to persuade you to believe what I believe, but since you've been so kind as to click in to my Blog I'd have hoped the unwritten comprehension that you're about to read my opinions is clearly understood, but please be sure to utilise the wonderfully-presented comment box at the bottom of the post if you have issues with my spelling. You see, where Dawkins is different not only in his methodology of belief but also his justification, is that he actively enforces an ideology of his own that stands beyond simply disposing of the belief of God, and it's fair to say he's slightly more relentless than I in trying to prove it.
I continued exploring my religion. I experienced many ups and downs in that journey, and as the whispering playfulness of childhood innocence left me during secondary school and I became... an arguably less model Christian (parts of which I still struggle with today)... I came to the point where I found that it might be impossible to truly believe when so much terror was going on in the world. The London bombings brought the frailty of humanity to everyone's mind as many innocents were killed; the Kashmir 7.6 Earthquake in Pakistan killed many more; Hurricane Katrina had just destroyed the American Gulf coast in one of the most devastating natural disasters in history, and Pope John Paul II had passed away. Looking back, it was by the end of this year - my first in secondary education and the first time Mass was no longer ingrained as a necessary Sunday activity - that I really began to question my beliefs. I plateaued somewhat for a while, and then coming across a passage in the Bible which really bothered me, I sat back at thought about whether or not it was really that logical to read the Bible anymore:

"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:37 I couldn't conceive any God (especially since this God seemed to me more like an ‘idea’ at the time) was more worthy of my love that my family was. It just didn't make sense. It's asking to give abstract emotional attention to an abstract form. Again, no sense was made. And then, as the real turning point for me, I watched a repeat showing of Derren Brown's 2004 TV Special Séance, which, if I recall correctly, has since become one of the most complained-about programme in TV history. In it, I watched in complete disbelief as a smug and self-important Brown caused a number of paranormal events, much to the sheer horror and fright of both those in the room and those watching. Impaired vision through hidden cameras and dim candle-light made it hard to see the workings of what was soon revealed to be a massive hoax (by Brown himself; the show was aimed to disprove the legitimacy of 17th-18th century seances).
This got me me thinking about how much I could 'see' with regard to my dwindling belief in God. I no longer read the Bible, having discovered the heinous chapters under Leviticus' name. But I still sort of wanted to believe there was something out there, but like the 12 bewildered volunteers in Séance, it was fairly impossible to test for legitimacy when your own vision disallowed you from ever finding out the truth.
I remember mocking those who believed in the paranormal shortly after, thinking myself numinously enlightened by Brown and his all-encompassing powers of discovering and exploiting fraudulence. It took me less than a year to realise that in fact, I was part of the same belief system as they were. I believed in God; they believed in spirits. Spot the difference. There isn't one, and there isn't one because there's just as much historical documentation about the existence of ghosts, demons, witches and the undead as there is for God, angels, apostles, Jesus and The Holy Ghost. Who was I to say spiritualists were wrong? Who was I to say that there beliefs were foolish and mine weren't? Just because my belief system was arguably more mainstream than their's didn't make mine a more factual historical entity. And sure, it's a comforting thought to be able to feed off the 'sense' of your cohort in order to validate our own beliefs, but since when did the popularity of a belief constitute it's accuracy?
And right now, I'm not really belonging to any religious system. I believe you can have faith - you can have faith in anything. A god, a person, or a chair in hoping it won't fall when you lean back in it. But faith should be individual. Faith is not something that should be enforced onto others or used as a tool in validating arguments with tenuous existential links, otherwise we're stuck back in religious territory and we end up with idiots like the Scientologists.
End note: Writing this blog is the first time I've really consolidated my thoughts on this matter. I suppose I thought it'd help in some way... Hmmm...

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!

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!

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!

This Halloween! Spixworth Fields Theme Park has been celebrating "Spixworth Horror Fields" running from 13th-31st October, hosting an event of horror attractions, fun family games and fantastic theming!
Here is Spixworth Fields Mania review of 2012 SHF:
The Park
The park themed top to bottom with Halloween objects, right at the end of Farm Lane is the mighty haunted windmill, below it is objects of the previous visitors of SHF...




When reaching the end of Field lane, you reach the first Horror Maze Attraction
The Pavilion

The Pavilion is set in 1943, in a unused pavilion previously used for all the guest seeing the beautiful gardens & house but after a freak unknown accident its been left to rot until recently the theme park open and they re-discovered the pavilion, now its your choice to become detectives and find out what really happened!
The Pavilion maze is stupidly placed but as this was the only major available land, I guess they had no choice... The Pavilion is right at the start of the park, the entrance is directly across from Farm Lane so the queues get very big

The queue line is set in the plaza to the pavilion the maze is set on you start your journey in a cobwebbed room before travelling deeper and deeper into the Pavilions past, beware as you get deeper as you may uncover something horrible!
The Pavilion 6/10
Forbidden Factory
Forbidden Factory is the second horror maze attraction this year, and by far the best...
Set in abandoned factory, the disaster that closed this factory happened in the boiler room yet the rest tools inside the factory have gone, the boiler room remains the same!

There is no blank bits in this horror maze, each room has a story to tell and scares alike, the maze also runs alot faster than The Pavilion and lets shorter queues as it is furthest away in the park! This is one of the highlights of the events

Forbidden Factory 8/10
Finally the 2013 construction site!


Here is an video of the event and a picture of the overview of the park took by the Spixworth Mania Helicopter!


And more photos at:
http://s1270.beta.photobucket.com/user/Liam_New_Tolson/library/RCT3/Spixworth%20Horror%20Fields

Thank you for viewing this blog! See you in 2013!

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.

Girls Aloud have a new single out. It's called 'Something New' and it's a whizz-bang poppers o'clock femme-fest about mastering the holy grail of all feminist endeavours - control. (Natalia Kills has sealed herself away in her bondage basement, weeping into her handcuffs.) 'Something New' is/was/has been produced by Xenomania, so on the pop spectrum of lamazing to balls-out fandango fantasticality, it's bound to end up somewhere near the top of the list, isn't it?
First off, 'Something New' isn't something new, at least in the grand scheme of pop music. Let's keep that in mind, please - we are talking about pop music, not music as a whole. And in the world of pop music, it's not a sound we've not heard before and the lyrics aren't all that new and innovative either, but whether this hinders your ability to enjoy this song boils down to whether or not you hold innovation and originality in staunchly high regard when considering what makes a certifiably 'good' pop song. And if you find yourself scoffing at the thought of a pop artist not being new and innovative then a great way of solving this is to type out all that you hold dear about innovative pop music, every little detail (with examples of these mystically precious songs), email it to yourself, print it out, fold it in four and write "My pleasure" on it, and then pop it up your bottom.
So yes, 'Something New' is ground re-trodden. So what? What catapults the song into the lofty height it proudly sits at, sneering down at the asthmatic anemia of synth-stabbing lightweights like Calvin Harris and LMFAO and their brand of euro(trash)pop is a number of precautionary measures one can reliably expect to hear in a Xenomania poptastic fanfare, such as how there's no breakdown. Western pop has taken on the recent belief that all club songs need a breakdown, but we have Adele and Ed Sheeran for those times when we feel the need for a good sit-down and a cry, so this logic is bollocks. Hearing every remotely energetic song diluted by a sudden drop-out of sound, followed by a build-up and then, if you're Calvin Harris, a big gun-shot before everything 'goes off' again, just kills momentum and it's sort of like getting ready to cum and then your lover turning into a boiled egg. More than one breakdown in a song is an even more heinous crime and you might as well not be bothering, because who's going to listen to a song where half the time there's nothing happening and to dance like you would at the 'big' parts makes you look like a complete goon?
Songs like 'Gangnam Style' and 'Bad Romance' evade this sort of gentle disappointment, the former because of how adorably stupid and slightly perverse the whole thing is and the latter because if you don't dance to music in Lady GaGaland you could find yourself impaled on a spike of human hair while getting bummed flat by gay Nazis. So when you see Calvin Harris nodding along to a song like 'We'll Be Coming Back' or 'You Used To Hold Me' with a stern moodface put on, taking it all relatively seriously and having as much fun as listening to paint dry, you begin to wonder why he bothers to fatten out his two-bar, four-note refrains with expensive but cheap-sounding whooshes of air. Quite cleverly, Xenomania have done away with that, and they've added an audible bass injection to the main refrain, meaning that the melody isn't so slight it becomes impossible to define or elaborate on for fear of it being lost amidst any form of singing above featherweight. In fact, that chorus refrain is like watching a sledgehammer being swung at your face in slow-motion, before it shatters you like a mirror.
As well as the above, the song's verses actually fit, and give the impression - unlike so many other Best Of... releases - that the song was actually formed with care, rather than squashing in a few verses after finding a good chorus hook. Just look at the way those verses spring up on you before you even know it. One minute there's a big skyflying chorus and then the next it's dirty and intimate with five femme fatales. The girls could be doing twenty seconds of farting in that time and it'd still be more interesting than pretty robots, The Saturdays. While everyone's obsessed with trying to find reason to invest praise in groups like Little Mix and StooShe for their harmonic seamlessness, it's actually pretty easy to see how on 'Something New' the collective forces of Cheryl, Nadine, Sarah, Nicola and t'other one with the round face actually combine together and work not in unison, but in collaboration, feeding off each other's energy to the point where the lacklustre chorus lyrics can feel reinvigorated. You may have noticed recent efforts from The Saturdays (e.g. - 30 Days (To Love)') where you've got five singers and one voice being heard; 'Something New' doesn't do that - it feels like a group with better harmony than any of the recent girls groups to come crawling out of the bargain bin. The verses naturally, are the best part, wobbling along to a pulsating bassline and staying true to what Girls Aloud are about instead of chasing expiry-dated trends like adding a bit of unnecessary gloom-wobble dub into the little (big) mix (see what I did there?). It's easy to be swamped by influences, but really, 'Something New' is influenced only by Girls Aloud. It doesn't try to look back into the past at a time when handbag house thought itself rather good and try to market it as the latest in chart trends. Nor does it pilfer an underground genre/influence and blusteringly pretend they're the ones who brought it to the mainstream (hey Britney!). What it is, is damn good pop music as pop music.
However - the lyrics do need changing. The reference to "boys" in the song should be changed to "girls". A winking kick up the arse to the **** crop of girl groups we have fostering spots on the radio airwaves. Imagine how much more sense it would make as their first single in over three years and they come out with "Girls you better watch your back/'Cause we're the leaders of the pack/Tell me can you handle that?". Just an observation.
So is it any good? I don't know really. I like some parts and I hate others. Sarah's bit is the best bit and that's not negotiable. Nadine's "Go girls g-g-go go go" is annoying. I've pointed out approximately five things about a song by a group of artists I don't usually like, so if you're one of those people who decides a song's quality on the singer's likability then maybe you don't deserve to listen to music. And more importantly, if need me to tell you which songs you should listen to and why then maybe you should just tear your ears off too. Fool.

I loved The Passing, I thought it was a great addition to the Fright Nights lineup that provided some great scares, however one thing that could of been done better was your death.
The only thing that comes close to a simulated death in The Passing is when a gunshot sound is played when you get your picture taken, if this meant to be the simulation of death then it just makes no sense, as in the next scene you get your bag. They cant kill you before you before you get the bag, then it would just be putting a bag over a corpse, it should be done like this;
First, you enter the room with the room with the video, the lights are all turned on, a firing squad then enters, they raise they're weapons and as they fire, all the lights go out and air cannons blast at you, a dim light then comes on, the firing squad have now left, the video then plays, after the video is finished an actor dressed in dark robes silently leads you to the tunnels to begin the maze.
Personally, I think that this is a much better way of simulating your execution, its quick, its realistic (well, as realistic as you can get when you pretend to kill your guests) and its easy to understand, if something like this was this was put in place, it would take out one of my major gripes with the maze.
Thanks for reading

Check out my review of The Passing on my shiny new WordPress, CoasterGeek, providing reviews of rides, events and attractions in the UK!
"Disturbing, Haunting, Unique. Those are the three words I would use to describe The Passing, Thorpe Park’s latest & most extreme Fright Nights maze yet…
After hearing many reviews of The Passing, I had low expectations, I was expected it to be crap, to my surprise though it turned out to be my favourite maze of the year. After getting the usual safety briefing (With the addition of warning you about the bags, the look on peoples faces were priceless) we entered the maze, we were lined up against a wall and told of our sentence and that after its all over, we would never be remembered..."
Read my full review here - http://coastergeek.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/the-passing-review/

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.

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.

First off, I don't really get this bloging thing. In case I haven't mentioned it, I'm old. Well, older than most here and so I haven't grown up with computers and internet and forums and now blogs, so some times it takes me a while to 'get' it. I had to grow up the hard way when if I wanted to see one of my friends I had to get on my bike, cycle to their house and ask their Mum if they could come out and play, not send them a text or Skype them or comment on their latest blog about Thundercats and Jubbly lollies. Sometimes it was raining and I actually got wet. And then there was all that awkward social interaction to bumble my way through. Oh the hardships.
I don't understand why, when there's a lovely little forum a couple of tabs along, there's now another place for people to write down their ramblings? I'll guess it is because people have something to say which they don't want disappearing on to a previous page a couple of days later never to be seen again, because what they have to say is so important and insightful it should not be damned to an eternity of obscurity on page 5 of 6 and instead needs a topic of it's own in the form of a blog entry for all to admire. Well I have nothing of such importance or insight to say that it deserves it's own little corner of the internet all to itself, but I'll say it anyway as it doesn't seem to have stopped anyone else.
Just have to think of something to write first. I'm going to guess people don't want to read about Thundercats and Jubbly lollies, so what will be my 'thing'? I am passionate about my work so I'm sure I'll touch on policing, crime and the current disturbing destruction of the police by our government that everyone should be worried about, but that won't be much fun. I enjoy TV, radio, film and skiing but am nothing of an expert in any of them. My real love is music, so there I shall start.
It is a god awful song and an annoying and overused phrase, but rather apt here, that life is like a rollercoaster. Most of it may turn out to be dull flat bits but everyone goes through their ups and downs, which is nice and exciting until you realise your riding an intermin, your restraint has failed and it is so bloody terrifying you don't know if you can hang on. I've had a fair few of these periods in my life, which will be much worse than anything that has ever happened to other people because it happened to me instead. But now, my theme tune.


Since I was tiny right up until today one thing has been there for me and really has got me through some of those tough times. Music has helped me so much when I've been in some bad places, the right song at the right time can do so much. Music really has been the answer to my problems and has shaped who I am and how I think. It is strange that a melody or lyric created by someone I don't know, not for me or about my life, can resonate so strongly and fit my situation so perfectly it's as if I am the only person it was ever intended for. For some of these songs the moment will pass and the meaning will fade, but others I'm sure will stay with me forever. Here are a few of the latter, any of which can make me weep quite unexpectedly if my head is in the right (or wrong) place.
They are probably no revelation, they are fairly mainstream and you'll probably know most or all of them. Of course it is entirely personal to me and a lot of it will be down to what was going on in my life at the time rather than the track itself, so they are likely to do nothing for you on any emotional level, but maybe try and detach them from the film, tv show or advert they've whored themselves out to and listen to the original feeling. I won't go in to why these in particular came to mean so much now, maybe another time, but each one has helped shape who I am today, I would be a different person had I never had them. They are me.




(about four Badly Drawn Boy tracks could be here. He is special)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OezUkQZx9rw


(and on the whole I really dislike Sting. But this? )




Laters.

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...