Track v. Footers/Supports

[BBH]

So I know for sure that constructing the footers is one of the single most expensive parts of the roller coaster building process. But my question is:

Is it cheaper to use a stronger track style (ie. http://rcdb.com/10089.htm?p=41028 or http://rcdb.com/594.htm?p=3818) using less supports and thus, less footers or to use a simpler track style that is not as strong but with more supports/footers? (Such as http://rcdb.com/11058.htm?p=44985 or http://rcdb.com/541.htm?p=697)

I've seen both in use and I understand that Millennium Force's first drop can't be supported by a two-rail track system, but I don't see why even in one company (these are all Intamin coasters, if you haven't picked up on that) the circumstances differ. (Sure, Ride of Steel is one of their earliest coasters, but Juvelen just opened this year with an even simpler track configuration.) I'm also aware that with Skyrush, the ride needed to use less supports for when it traversed the river, but I don't see why they spent the extra money fabricating the stronger track for the entire ride.

Forgive me if this is a stupid/ridiculous/"Oh you silly American" question.

 

[Antinos]

I can't be arsed to Google prices, if they could even be found, but steel might have been significantly cheaper when the Rides of Steel were built. A more plausible hypothesis is that it's due to location. They're both built on kind of swampy ground. I know GCI likes to use giant cement slabs for areas with a high water table or wetter ground and this could be a similar application.

 

[jolash]

Like most things in the industry, it depends.

Everything is case by case. Every ride made will be analyzed for cost effectiveness and there will be a sort of battle during design to find the perfect balance of supports and track strength.

There is DEFINITELY no straight "which is cheaper" answer.

 

[Jason Voorhees]

^That.

 

[CPSFMMCW]

all i know, is that vekoma footers are HUGE!

 

[Taxi]

I'm also aware that with Skyrush, the ride needed to use less supports for when it traversed the river, but I don't see why they spent the extra money fabricating the stronger track for the entire ride.

Well......stronger track = less supports = easier installation. The less parts the less maintenance, Parks are ALWAYS glad to hear that. And you have to consider the location, construction in an area like that was nothing short of a mess. So having less parts to move around makes it MUCH easier to construct, especially in that specific location where access was limited.


Also to answer your question.
The ride uses a new type of train, presumably heavier and/or bulkier making the loads more dynamic. Adding to that, the ride is has some very tight radii for a hyper coaster so the track needed to be strong enough to support the load. Plus the ride was built on a creek so I'm sure the park wanted it to look visually appealing (less supports). So It's really no wonder (when you consider all of these possible factors) as to why this specific type of track was used .

And like jolash wrote. It all really has to be taken case by case.