Chessington 2013

[JoshC.]

That's not what's happening though is it Josh. It is neigh on impossible to get planning permission for ride structures on green belt land. Moving the zoo over there will allow progress for the theme park. The park can't win really, one minute they don't care about the park, one minute they're neglecting the zoo. That's not what's happening, I think the park are just looking at all of the options so they can progress forward rather than just being stagnated, arguably like they have been as of late in terms of new rides.

That's the thing, I don't understand what is happening!From what I can gather, they've got this plan to have a safari experience, but if that doesn't get the green light, they have an alternative plan to move the rest of the zoo there? In turn, that would mean they have more land which can be used for rides and the 'theme park', as opposed to the zoo. The way I see that alternative plan is, if they can't expand the zoo even further, by adding this safari experience, Chessie are almost going to give up with the hard work they've put into integrating the zoo and the theme park, bung the zoo onto the land which would've been taken up by the safari, and then be able to work on the theme park.Of course, I'd love to see the best of both worlds, with balanced investment in the zoo and theme park, but I don't think that resorting to moving large parts of the zoo to elsewhere on their land to be able to invest in the theme park (which, as said, is more or less what I gather from this alternative plan) would be the wrong way to go about it.But, hopefully, we won't see this alternative plan come to light as the safari experience will get the green light from the council and all will be good..!

[Fred]

Either way it sounds like they're trying to expand the footprint of the park. This could explain why Monkey & Bird garden improvements were cancelled/massively scaled down.Either way would be fantastic to see happen. Both seem to open up an area for improvements to the zoo or theme park.

[pluk]

I would much prefer it for the zoo and park to be integrated rather than split in two, just little things like the Lagoon are great but there could be some great ride/animal tie ins (Cheetah Hunt!). I suppose this can't happen because of greenbelt/planning restrictions and making zoo days impossible. Shame though. Why are there no snake enclosures or encounters at rattlesnake?This safari does look great, shame it only seems to include 3 animals - a lot of effort for what will be a small selection. Will the placement of this make it possible to expand into other enclosures in the future?

[HAJiME]

As those of you who read that blog I wrote will know, I'm a strong believer that the park is in dire need of a thrill ride...There's this fallacy floating around that family parks don't need thrill rides, when the very park that Chessington is so inspired by in recent years demonstrates the need. The Busch Gardens parks work because they integrate big investment rides which bring in paying guests with more typical family elements, notably theming. Theming dresses attractions up for the audience they are aimed at, and can transform thrill hardware into a family attraction. That's pretty much what Busch do with every attraction they get. This is a company that buys a drop tower and themes it to a folk dance. Think about what Merlin would instinctively do... Paint it dark and try and make it as terrifying as possible. I'm starting to think maybe they just don't really know how to entertain families?On a personal note, zoo expansion is right up my street... And I've heard numerous times that the British audience are a sucker for animals, but I can't help feel that you can see a rhino in so many places around the UK... Who is going to be drawn to the park to see one? Animal exhibits count as added extras, things that improve the quality of the visit, not things that attract you to the park, surely? Perhaps something like this safari experience is a little different, and they must have the research to back up an investment, especially one this huge. But the integration of zoo and theme park should improve the overall quality of a guests day, I just doubt the impact on visitor numbers, ya know?In a perfect world, Chessington would build a high capacity coaster which is one step up from Fury. Chessington's best asset is it has attractions which can follow kids as they grow, encouraging repeat visits yearly from families. That's how I grew up. Kids nowadays are much braver than I was as a kid, so a family thrill coaster (preferably 1.2/3m) is what the park really, really needs. Coasters bring in guests like no other attraction. They are unique selling points and they have longevity. But the reality is, the park cannot build a coaster... Height and noise restrictions are preventing them, and funding is stopping them from solving that by building indoors or pulling a Nemesis.What frustrates me is the constant abandoning of projects. I wan't to know why it keeps happening. I read something someone said on here once about there being a vicious cycle that started when Chessington stopped getting decent investments. Managers got frustrated and left and so the quality of management has thus dropped.As for investments that HAVE been made. Chessington apparently did rather well from Wild Asia, didn't it. When I worked there for a short time in 2010, I'd ask guests If they'd been on it and if they liked it, and there are a lot of guests who felt it's height restriction was too high for how tame it was. They need a proper thrill ride. Kobra is a spectacle ride. As is Ramases. But Kobra was obviously easy to market and it brought people to the park. It's mor ein the right direction.

[Benin]

A variant of Thirteen would have been perfect for Chessie...Another problem is the lack of income the park apparently seems to be making in comparison to the others... Even though Chessie got a lot more through the gates than Thorpe (somehow, I'm still confused over that) the only addition this year is a very low budget, minimal area retheme (which probably won't incorporate Berries or Toadies)... So the question must be why?It's no secret that I would love the park to get a Gerstlauer Launched coaster like Anubis at Plopsaland or Lynet at Farup (or perhaps a Maurer one instead)... But on the other hand their capacity isn't great so would just be to the same scale as Fury for throughputs... But what else is there with a throughput around 700+ that would fit into Chessie?And for flats? Well I'd love for them to get a Vekoma Madhouse cos those can eat through queues brilliantly, but again aside from that I can think of few alternatives that would properly suit the park's market and area... A big issue is the lack of any decent throughput rides for the support rides, especially the main kids attractions (Berries, Trucks, Jumbos, Toadies), so perhaps a view to removing these (especially Trucks, I would help with that myself) and replacing them with rides with decent throughputs (Hello Mack) would be a start for the park...Thrill rides are difficult for Chessie ever since Tussauds took Samurai down the road and went into the kids market with the park... Of course now with the new branding there's a potential for something, but again what? I struggle to think what massive thrill ride could exist in Chessie's world that would be reliable and able to fit in seemlessly...It would be interesting if they DID move Trail of the Kings in the end, if they moved the SeaLions as well, that could be a nice big area for some Alpine themed area to link with Translyvania and hold a mini-Expedition Everest... One can dream...

[Mark9]

Thrill rides are difficult for Chessie ever since Tussauds took Samurai down the road and went into the kids market with the park... Of course now with the new branding there's a potential for something, but again what? I struggle to think what massive thrill ride could exist in Chessie's world that would be reliable and able to fit in seemlessly...

One Acronym and One word. B&M Flyer. Seriously, when was Chessington most seen as the perfect family park? 1999/2000 when it had Samurai, Rodeo and Rameses Revenge alongside Tomb Blaster, Bubbleworks and Flying Jumbos. Nearly ten years on, it's quite clear that rides like Fury and Rattlesnake don't cut it as major rollercoasters. Sure they are fun, but they just can't handle the numbers. A three train B&M flyer eats up as much guests as Vampire, Fury and Rattlesnake put together.Make it so Chessie. :)

[Chief Ranger]

There are plenty more reasons that ToTK will be moving - the land type an how much damage it's done to that area.When Rattlesnake was built; one of the sides of the hole they had dug to fit the ride into, fell in onto a digger overnight. This may sound amusing but the whole park is sliding down the hill towards Leatherhead Road. It's not anything fast but 1-2inches a year - you can see the amount of cracks in the floor in the area from Greedy Goblin down to the bottom of ToTK, along with Sealion Bay. It's done a lot of damage to the animal enclosures so it's probably a no go area for new ride development.Random fact of the day: The hotel is built on 100m deep foundations, however it currently sits 1 metre above ground level so the water ingress doesn't affect it.

[HAJiME]

One Acronym and One word. B&M Flyer. Seriously, when was Chessington most seen as the perfect family park? 1999/2000 when it had Samurai, Rodeo and Rameses Revenge alongside Tomb Blaster, Bubbleworks and Flying Jumbos. Nearly ten years on, it's quite clear that rides like Fury and Rattlesnake don't cut it as major rollercoasters. Sure they are fun, but they just can't handle the numbers. A three train B&M flyer eats up as much guests as Vampire, Fury and Rattlesnake put together.Make it so Chessie. :)

Eughhhghg flyer... See, I think the would do well to get a no-gimmick solid roller coaster for roller coaster sake... But the fact is they just can't. You couldn't build a B&M smaller than Fury... Not without digging, and the minute you start excavating you're massively increasing cost. And then the noise a B&M makes, especially if it's below ground level with the noise echoing. :(I like the Gerst launcher idea that Benin mentioned... I think launchers should be thought of not as a gimmick, but as a tool like a lift. In the case of parks who cannot build tall, it's their only option. It's why I was like 95% positive SW7 would be a launcher. How wrong I was though.But, even if Chessie planned a ground hugging launcher with a couple of inversions... I still don't think they'd get planning permission for it. Unless maybe they promise to rip out Vampire and prove the new ride would be a lot quieter? Lmao. In seriousness though, I just don't think it's going to happen. Ever. They've gotta try another route, and they are... Let's just hope it goes somewhere and isn't abandoned.

There are plenty more reasons that ToTK will be moving - the land type an how much damage it's done to that area.When Rattlesnake was built; one of the sides of the hole they had dug to fit the ride into, fell in onto a digger overnight. This may sound amusing but the whole park is sliding down the hill towards Leatherhead Road. It's not anything fast but 1-2inches a year - you can see the amount of cracks in the floor in the area from Greedy Goblin down to the bottom of ToTK, along with Sealion Bay. It's done a lot of damage to the animal enclosures so it's probably a no go area for new ride development.Random fact of the day: The hotel is built on 100m deep foundations, however it currently sits 1 metre above ground level so the water ingress doesn't affect it.

Wow. That's really interesting... But a tragic addition to the list of reasons why the park, ride expansion wise, is pretty screwed.Do you know if that means their existing attractions have a shorter life because of it? And was this part of the reason why Fury is "temporary"? (What's the current deal with that btw, anyone know?) And whilst we're on the subject of Fury, was anyone paying attention enough at the time to know what it did for the park in terms of success?

[Chief Ranger]

Was this part of the reason why Fury is "temporary"? (What's the current deal with that btw, anyone know?) And whilst we're on the subject of Fury, was anyone paying attention enough at the time to know what it did for the park in terms of success?

Fury is not in a good state. Being open for opening day will be long shot.The fact that the ride lift does categorically not have enough supports for the lift, or is installed with the right pins into the ground. This was part of the reason it was retracked in 2005 (I think it was then). It is looking like it needs to be retracked again, due to the stress on the ride.

[Benin]

Oh Fury... That ride has been such a burden to the park...At this rate the park won't have any major coaster to talk of...

[Liam T]

Chessington Buzz reports that large equipment has been seen clearing away shrubbery and trees in the area where the attraction will be constructed and believe this is the beginning of construction work for the addition.

[Fred]

Fury is not in a good state. Being open for opening day will be long shot.

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes!! Only a day or two ago was I mentioning that fury never works in its even years (apart from 2010?). I was wondering what'll happen to it this year

[Will]

I agree with what Fred says.The point I want to make is, that Chessington are supported by Merlin and whilst all the other parks are doing well, Chessie is kinda falling to pieces. I agree they have it harder than the other parks but that shouldn't stop them from getting a move on. It's a shame that the Safari Trail is happening in 2013 and not sooner, like it should have.If it happened in 2006/2007, we could have Trail of the Kings up north too, meaning by now...we'd have some new rides and attractions by 2012/2013. It's just a shame it's all happening now and not sooner.The Runaway Train:1) Old = 23 yrs old2) Heavily outdated3) Bad thoroughputDragon's Fury:1) Doesn't have enough supports for the lifthill2) Doesn't run on full capacity3) Is unreliableVampire:1) Someone mentions it runs on 2 trains2) Is hard to maintain3) Unreliable4) Old = 22 yrs oldRattlesnake:1) Has bad capacity2) Run with 2 per train instead of 43) Has a tough heigh restriction

Edited February 5, 2012 by Will

[Fred]

Dragon's Fury:1) Doesn't have enough supports for the lifthill

Post of the year.

[Kevin]

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes!! Only a day or two ago was I mentioning that fury never works in its even years (apart from 2010?). I was wondering what'll happen to it this year

2010 it shutdown all the time!

[Fred]

There we go then. Didn't pay attention to chessie in 2010.

[Marc]

Dragon's Fury:1) Doesn't have enough supports for the lifthill

It most certainly does have enough supports!

[Benin]

It probably has the minimum number it can in theory get away with...The basic pole design also means less stability and means that the stresses and strains don't have to do much effort against it... Hence why most supports are A-Frames or Triangular in nature, as those as the best type against high levels of stress...Also, more stress is acting on the supports because of the load not being distributed as much as it probably should be... One or two extra supports would make a world of difference...[/Making my Engineering Degree Worthwhile]

[Benin]

^Trust me, I'm SO tempted to get some information on the steel used for the ride, bust out the calculator and do a Finite Element Analysis on that Lift Hill...Too much free time...

[Topsyturvy15]

In times of a recession the lift hills are the first to be cut, spitball whizzer has even less I believe?

[Benin]

In times of a recession the lift hills are the first to be cut, spitball whizzer has even less I believe?

Post of the year!

[Fred]

In times of a recession the lift hills are the first to be cut

Yeah they are. The problem is it's extremely short-sighted, as by the time they get around to opening the ride, they realise the trains cannot make it out the station/around the entire track without one.

[Will]

I wonder if the Safari Trail got approved, will they have space to move the Trail of the Kings up there?Trail of the Kings/Transylvania/SeaLife/SeaLions ExhibitIf the Trail of the Kings was to be moved up next to the Safari Trail, that would free up loads of space. I like to think there are 3 big areas in park:Africa, which is the Madagascar stage show which Chessie called Africa and combine that with Forbidden Kingdom and Mexicana, that would fit in well with the proposed Safari Trail and Wayanama Village, Europe, which is Pirate's Cove, Translvania and Land of the Dragons (England) and Asia, which is Mystic East and Wild Asia.With Africa, Europe and Asia, it would make sense to have a 4th area which could be called Antartica and if the Trail of the Kings was moved next to the Safari Trail, there would be room to build a new area. It would be nice to have a ski village and a minetrain coaster like Expedition Everest or Mammut at Gardaland via the alps mountains like the Rhinefield (Germany) themed land in Busch Gardens: Williamsburg.Not forgetting Bubbleworks could be themed as a Brewery or some magical folklore legend and Transylvania's Vampire could be themed as a family-version of Alpengeist. You could even have a Polar Bear exhibit, since you have the SeaLife attraction and the Sealions exhibit. It would make sense and it would be consistent and would fit-in well.

[HAJiME]

I think, looking back to what was said in that Wild Asia construction tour CF did, their intention was to unite Mystic East with Wild Asia under one title and then go on to have; Wild Asia, Wild Africa, Wild Europe and Wild Americas.It would irritate me to no end if Mexicana was dumped in with Africa and didn't become part of a wider "Americas" section. I think this was/still is their intention up until very recently, because in the plans they put up and then withdrew for the new monkey and bird garden, it showed theming that was Mayan inspired.Naming the Madagascar area simply "Africa" suggests a couple of things... That the show is temporary and can be easily replaced by generically naming that area to make it fit later. What looked like a huge distraction actually still in line with what was, and we assume still is, their long term vision.I think the show will be good for Chessie and their entertainments team are awesome. It's just not my cup of tea, and I'm skeptical that it'll bring in substantial numbers or that the British public really give a toss about shows. I hope I'm proved wrong, because that would open up a huge opportunity to push for more show-like aspects on attractions at all British parks. Because, at the moment, I'm fairly sure people are riding Valhalla to get wet, not for it's show-like special effects. Ya know? So, yeah, I'm interested in how this pans out and I hope the show itself is good. It's a good location in the park to put a show too, right in the centre. I'm kind of glad they found a use for that space because I sure as hell was stumped.Moving the Jumbos to Mexicana annoys me though. Massively. I'm not sure what the alternative was, though. Could they not have gone to Wild Asia?? They'd have fit in there... Maybe they intend to move them again at some point. Who knows.

[Ben1990]

I think the Jumbos being moved and not rethemed is most likely because the ride is clearly coming toward the end of its life, and they thought they might aswell keep it for now until they have something to actually replace it with...Although I have faith that they may have done something with it, given that they are retheming Berry Bouncers Jumbos will probably not make the 2013 season tbh, given that the ride is so outdated and the awkward location it now finds itself in...I doubt it will get many riders this season, and with the safari trail and new pathway next year I really can't see the Flying Jumbos being kept- what's the point?