I hope so

I was there today and the new que system sucks -.-It's way too vague. I would rather have a confusing system which can give you a remotely accurate idea of que length than a simple system where you don't really have a clue.But que times today were acceptable for today I suppose.Saw: 1 hour+. Nemesis Inferno: 0-30mins. Om nom nom nom nom Colossus: 30mins-1 hour or 1 hour +.Stealth: 0-30mins most the time but hit 30mins-1 hour. All of the flat rides were 0-30mins with very little exception. Got a lovely amount of rides on Rush. In conclusion:New queing system sucks. I reallly hope it's only temporary.Ques were decent with the exception of saw and Colossus.

New queing system sucks. I reallly hope it's only temporary.

It is. My friends mum overheard a staff member tell this other guy that they are just testing them out, to see if it makes other people's days 'easier'.Now, am I wrong, or does running from Rush to Stealth expecting an under 30 minute queue and getting there to realise its actually about 40 mins sound 'easy'?Absolutely not.I'm glad its only temporary, and I hope Thorpe gets a truck load of complaints telling them to sort it out.I will defo complain.(sorry for the rant )

You made yourself look a bit stupid there by firstly saying their "testing" then saying its "temporary".If it works out good, THORPE PARK are most likely going to stick to this as opposed to the older way of queue boarding.In my opinion its a more reliable way of telling queue times, firstly using the old method, lets say " SAW: the ride queue time is currently 70 minutes", and you queue for it only to find out its 90 minutes, some people are going to be really p***** off they had to wait an extra 20 minutes, by giving a rough time within a certain time gap its then saying it could be anything between these times. 60+ is better, then people can prepare to wait for more then an hour, you might say differently but I hope it stays!

Right so say if we say 3.. then who is to say what queue time that is? an hour, 3 hours, 2 years? That's an immeasurable length of queue time and to be honest with you, is to vague.It needs some work and could work but I don't think there was anything wrong with the old system. Ok, it may have got complaints but only if the staff don't update it regularly.

I agree that 3 should go beyond 60+ but I still prefer this system.

Judging by recent events, I suspect Thorpe Park are run by baboons.

In my opinion the only reason they are doing this is to stop annoyed customers from the reason Ricky gave, but that failed becuase if you see Loggers as a 1 and your in front of X queue time board, you have to walk all the way over to Loggers to find out how long the queue is, therefore wasting time of your day and extra walking.

I would encourage the older system to return.Imagine if you have never been to THORPE PARK before. You see a 3 on Colossus. They could be queueing for 180 mins for all we know!I would rather have the old system as I don't mind joining a queue and it turns out to be less.Same I don't mind joining a queue and it turns out to be 10-15 mins more.The times do state they are 'approximately' or 'currently'.This is why I prefer the system at Chessington."Welcome to Vampire... Waiting time is currently 30 mins... Rides and Attractions are available until 5pm...."I personally feel that this new system will just get more guests piling up outside Guest Services.(I would not blame them really to be honest!)

WEll thats why the signs next to queue boards state 1 = 0-30 mins 2 = 30-60 mins 3 60+ to stop the confusion its only to give a rough guess and I like it, it wont have guests piling up, no-one can complain really I have been told they haven't had nay complaints so far and its been there nearly a week!

But.. the old system was just estimates as well. All queue boards say "the queue time is approximately __ minutes. It was never an exact system. This new system only makes things more accurate because its way to vague. You could have 1 as 0-60 minutes and it would mean just as little as what they are trialling at the moment.

THORPE PARK boards said (for instance) "Nemesis inferno's queue time is currently 70 mins" not approximately.

Think it's crap, and btw Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time.

Phill youve posted that everywhere, why? I dont like the new system its way too vague

THORPE PARK boards said (for instance) "Nemesis inferno's queue time is currently 70 mins" not approximately.

That suggests otherwise..

On the LED scrollers.

You don't go into a shop to enquire the price of, for example a tie, and see it says 'Price: 1', and then find out it could range from between £3.99 and £89.75.This, this is how stupid Thorpe have got. I don't see what is wrong with posting the proper time you will queue.

You don't go into a shop to enquire the price of, for example a tie, and see it says 'Price: 1', and then find out it could range from between £3.99 and £89.75.This, this is how stupid Thorpe have got. I don't see what is wrong with posting the proper time you will queue.

I agree.As Mark said, it does state that it is 'approximately' or 'currently'.SORT IT OUT THORPE!

I've been drinking and even I can even see why THORPE PARK® have done this. It was never EVER an accurate queue time to begin with, it was only a rough idea (an estimation IF YOU WILL). Now it falls into either one of three categories, short, medium or long wait. That said, this could of been done without sticking ****ty signs up everywhere, just do a bloody average!? 10 Mins | 30 MINS | 60 MINS. Done, was that so hard? Bloody hell. Now let's move on with our lives. Btw Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time.

OR! sensors in the queue line that auto update the queue line board saving operators time, and it will be ultimately accurate.... however this would happen.

Think it's crap, and btw Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time.

Wouldn't you get on well with mr Kanye West

Someone on another forum came up with a great idea, and that is if they install a sensor at the entrance which counts the number of people in the queue, calculate that along with throughputs etc and you've got a pretty accurate queue length measureing system, it could work a treat. Would require a little investment but nothing that wouldn't be worth it or would be over the top.

Wouldn't work as it doesn't take into account fastrack, exit riders or disabled riders.Phill.. I'm drinking to, I'm not posting rubbish so can it please.

Normally I'd take into account what Ricky's saying before saying anything, but I honestly can't think of a single way that this new system is better than the old one. So all I'm going to say is Boo. Boo!

So basically, we'll be seeing 3s everywhere around the park. How can you make it justifiable to make the system EVEN MORE vague? If they wanted to do this system, surely a better way to do it would be:1: Under 20 minutes.2: 21-40 minutes.3: 41-60 minutes.4: 61-90 minutes.5: 91-120 minutes.6: 121+ minutes.Remember, that's me saying if they wanted to do the system, not what I think is the best system.The best system was the old one. Just have on the LED boards (or even a small note near it) that all queue times are approximations and could be longer / shorter than projected for a variety of reasons. Then we'd all be happy and we wouldn't have another thing to complain about.