What's new

B&M's current MCBR positioning

Screaming Coasters

Strata Poster
I'm just wondering why on all new B&M coasters with 3+ trains, they've decided to put the MCBR towards the end of the ride and not in the middle like they used to?

Gatekeeper and Shambhala are among the two recent examples of this.

Is it better for throughputs / dispatch?
 

Hixee

Flojector
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Social Media Team
No actual facts or anything about this, just throwing an educated guess at it. My guess is that it doesn't affect the dispatch timings too much, and therefore B&M want to give the rider a more continuous, uninterrupted ride experience.

Strictly, the train only has to have cleared the MCBR before the following train hits the top of the lift hill. On these big B&Ms, the lift hills take a decent portion of time (even on Gatekeeper which is small in comparison to Shambhala) and so adding in dispatch time means that the MCBRs probably don't need to be put halfway through.

Take GateKeeper for example - from dispatch to the top of the lift hill is about 35 seconds, from there to the MCBR is about 60 seconds, and then there's about another 15 seconds before the final brakes. If train-1 leaves the station with train-2 on the brake run waiting (lets just ignore train-3 for now), then I would guess that train-1 is going to be most of the way to the top of the lift hill before the gates are even open to load train-2. By the time train-2 reaches the top of the lift hill I would have reckoned train-1 would be clearing the MCBR, and so train-2 won't need to stop. Repeat of course, for train-3 which is now loading while train-2 climbs the lift hill. Add to that the shortenings of all of these times with the 'once the train has cleared that hill with that speed it's definitely making it up the next hill' logic used commonly these days (the actual name of which escapes me currently), then I think putting them later in the ride has little or no effect of the train efficiency.

Couple that, with the nature of B&M rides and their flow etc, and I would imagine from a designers point of view you'd want to try and keep the tempo of the ride up for as long as you can before putting in an MCBR. I suppose it's a balance between train efficiency and rider enjoyment.

As I said, I'm making ALL of this up, but it seems pretty sensible to me.
 

BBH

Giga Poster
Re: B&M's current MCBR positioning

B&M have been designing a lot of two-train coasters for a while now, but my best guess for those that do have a MCBR is that they don't want to interrupt the flow of the ride.


Posted while reading your mind.
 

Hyde

Matt SR
Staff member
Moderator
Social Media Team
MCBR exist for the sole purpose of increasing capacity. Ideally, a MCBR will be located at the moment in the ride when the next train is ready to dispatch - meaning the train currently passing through the layout does not need to slow down, and the train in the station/on the lift hill does not need to wait.

In some cases, such as Gatekeeper, placing the MCBR towards the end is indeed that moment when the train in the station is ready to dispatch, and serves as relatively little lag in the blocking when compared to other roller coasters.

So I would say that there is not a concerted effort on B&M's part to have MCBR at the end of the ride, that is simply how long it takes to theoretically load the trains, and the placement of the traveling train when ready for the next dispatch.
 

_koppen

Hyper Poster
Hyde244 said:
So I would say that there is not a concerted effort on B&M's part to have MCBR at the end of the ride, that is simply how long it takes to theoretically load the trains, and the placement of the traveling train when ready for the next dispatch.

Actually I don't think the placement of the MCBR has anything to do with the load time of the trains, it is just placed where in the layout it fits best for that specific installation.

For an example Gatekeeper didn't really have any point before the current MCBR where it would fit in well, if they wanted to design it the way they did. For Shambhala B&M presented 7 different proposals for the layout, and the one who was chosen happened to have the MCBR where it is. The new wing rider in China have the MCBR placed in the middle of it, where it fits best in for that specific installation etc..
 

rtotheizzo17

Hyper Poster
MCBR are only on the ride to allow for more trains to be on the track. They are designed to allow equal spacing between each "block". They are on the course to avoid a potential collision of trains.

Load time will absolutely be equated into the designs as well as a host of other things. In a perfect world the time it takes to load, dispatch, and fall off the lift chain is the exact moment the train in front of it is clearing the block brake (MCBR).

The placing has little to nothing to do with aesthetics or the flow of the layout.
 

Hyde

Matt SR
Staff member
Moderator
Social Media Team
_koppen said:
Hyde244 said:
So I would say that there is not a concerted effort on B&M's part to have MCBR at the end of the ride, that is simply how long it takes to theoretically load the trains, and the placement of the traveling train when ready for the next dispatch.

For an example Gatekeeper didn't really have any point before the current MCBR where it would fit in well, if they wanted to design it the way they did. For Shambhala B&M presented 7 different proposals for the layout, and the one who was chosen happened to have the MCBR where it is. The new wing rider in China have the MCBR placed in the middle of it, where it fits best in for that specific installation etc..
On the contrary, Gatekeeper's MCBR is relatively well placed when considering load time of the trains and ride duration. The train passing through the MCBR does not have to brake, and the loading train is able to dispatch without waiting for the previous train to pass through the MCBR. Where stacking tends to occur on Gatekeeper is in the final brake run, instead of the MCBR.

_koppen said:
Actually I don't think the placement of the MCBR has anything to do with the load time of the trains, it is just placed where in the layout it fits best for that specific installation.
A poorly placed MCBR can ultimately lead to reduced train operation. Mantis is a great example of this - the roller coaster is designed for three train operation, but the third train was eventually removed as the MCBR was simply too close to the final brake run in timing - a train would pass through the MCBR well before the dispatch train has finished its loading. This was a matter of load time being far longer than layout duration, and the roller coaster ultimately did not need a MCBR.

So yes, load time should still be considered with MCBR.
 

_koppen

Hyper Poster
^ Well it was probably wrong to say that timing has nothing to do with the placement of the MCBR, but as I said, it is not what decides where it goes. They have to have a certain interval to where they have to place it for it to be effective, but if you look at the almost 100 B&M rides in existence, you can easily see that timing is not what have decided where they have their MCBR. Each installation is different and each client have specific request on how the coaster should be designed, and you have to build it around those. As I said on Gatekeeper it have the MCBR on the only possible location to achieve the design that was desired. It just happen to line up with how the trains are despatched, but surely that is the result of the team working it have learned how they should time their procedures to achieve it.

FOTR is a perfect example of this, it have the same length and height as Gatekeeper, and it takes the same time from dispatch to the top, still it hits it's MCBR 10 seconds earlier than Gatekeeper.

On smaller coasters like a wild mouse that requires a lot of block brakes, then the timing is a completely different story, but for big B&M rides they have to look at the specific installation and the features asked by the client to decide where it will be best fitted and still have an acceptable result.
 

rtotheizzo17

Hyper Poster
What is the design purpose of a MCBR? It does not increase the thrillingness of a ride in any way. In terms of ride elements its like nipples on a man.

Its purpose is to separate sections of the track to maximize ride efficiency.

No doubt that when a park contracts a company to build them a ride, the request/receive multiple versions of potential layouts, then factor in thrill level, costs, etc... The block brakes are already in those designs...and they are based on the theoretical spacing of the ride.
 

_koppen

Hyper Poster
rtotheizzo17 said:
What is the design purpose of a MCBR? It does not increase the thrillingness of a ride in any way. In terms of ride elements its like nipples on a man.

Its purpose is to separate sections of the track to maximize ride efficiency.

Yes, you are stating the obvious.

rtotheizzo17 said:
The block brakes are already in those designs...and they are based on the theoretical spacing of the ride.

^No, as I wrote earlier each installation is different, and that reflects in the placement of the MCBR. You seem to think that they are working with a certain equation of where the MCBR need to be placed, and then the ride is design based on that. That is not the case.

The designers have a general placement of the MCBR in order for it to be effective, but there is not real sweet spot for such a placement, it can be moved back of forward in the layout, and still fit in what is acceptable for the timing of the trains. As i have said now each installation is different, and the MCBR is placed based on that.

Screaming Coasters said:
I'm just wondering why on all new B&M coasters with 3+ trains, they've decided to put the MCBR towards the end of the ride and not in the middle like they used to?

Gatekeeper and Shambhala are among the two recent examples of this.

Is it better for throughputs / dispatch?

To actually answer the hyper question I think it's just because B&M's latest hyper's have fewer elements than the old ones, specifically the little bunny hills toward the end. Intimidator is similar to Shambhala in that aspect, it dosen't do a lot after the MCBR, but still it have no more layout before the MCBR compared to the old ones. They just have fewer elements.
 

rtotheizzo17

Hyper Poster
I was using hyperbole as your initial stance was the block brake had nothing to do with efficiency and was purely for asthetics/layout.

The fact that each unique layout has a unique mcbr is kind of proof that they factor in all sorts of equation including, dispatch, in order to get the timing of trains in a specific block. There is a reason why trains dont stop on the lift or the mcbr on beamers unless its an e stop.

I think everyone is kind of saying the same thing here, you are just hung up on the loading portion of it.

Final thought on this.. I think a huge reason why they have been able to push block brakes back is the variable speed lift chain. Almost all new installations have the ability to slow down or speed up as needed to ensure proper efficiency. This allows for much more flexability on the load platform.
 

andrus

Giga Poster
^I agree. I think chain speed has alot to do with the placement of the mcbr. Newer B&Ms have significantly faster chain lifts than old, hence the train will have traversed a farther piece of track and there's a possibility to place the mcbr later without loosing capacity.

BUT, I just wanna stick in that I hate late mcbrs!! They absolutely kills the pace! Grand examples are Shambhala and iSpeed. Both have just a turnaround and a small hill before the final brake run, and both are relatively lacklustre and turn in to a mere transport distance to the brake run. I would much have prefered to just skip the final portion of these rides! Or having an earlier mcbr.

Btw, a question to those of you that is/have been working as ride operators: how often are mcbr actually used? I would say I'm fairly well travelled with ~200 coasters in several different countries, yet I've never seen the use of a mcbr. What I mean is that I've never seen two B&M trains on the actual ride track at once, not even in three train operation. At best I've seen one on the lift while another still traverse the track. It seems that ride operators have to be REALLY quick to actually have any use of the mcbr at all!
 

tribar

Mega Poster
Re: B&M's current MCBR positioning

andrus said:
^I agree. I think chain speed has alot to do with the placement of the mcbr. Newer B&Ms have significantly faster chain lifts than old, hence the train will have traversed a farther piece of track and there's a possibility to place the mcbr later without loosing capacity.

BUT, I just wanna stick in that I hate late mcbrs!! They absolutely kills the pace! Grand examples are Shambhala and iSpeed. Both have just a turnaround and a small hill before the final brake run, and both are relatively lacklustre and turn in to a mere transport distance to the brake run. I would much have prefered to just skip the final portion of these rides! Or having an earlier mcbr.

Btw, a question to those of you that is/have been working as ride operators: how often are mcbr actually used? I would say I'm fairly well travelled with ~200 coasters in several different countries, yet I've never seen the use of a mcbr. What I mean is that I've never seen two B&M trains on the actual ride track at once, not even in three train operation. At best I've seen one on the lift while another still traverse the track. It seems that ride operators have to be REALLY quick to actually have any use of the mcbr at all!

It's for emergencies too
 

coaster addict

Mega Poster
^ Great points already... we seem to find that many Cedar Fair B&Ms are 3 train coasters (seems all of their major rides have 3 trains - we assume that is a requirement at their parks for capacity purposes) while Six Flags is not as big on the whole 3-train need. When there are 3 trains in place, the placement of the MCBR seems to have to be placed in a more calculated spot! Those are just our amateur thoughts!
 

D1993

Hyper Poster
The use of a MCBR or a Block Brake is EXTREMELY useful.
I don't believe the placement really affects much. The capacity may differ by a couple hundred at most from ride to ride, but with a 3 train B&M they are capable of achieving 1600 riders per hour (which is a quick moving line). Banshee is a little different, however the ride time is closer to 50 seconds than a minute and the lift hill is freakishly fast. So the total ride time is also shorter.
So far in all my other experiences with 3 train b&m's, they are never designed to stack at all.
Take gatekeeper for example (which is a capacity monster, highest hours seen at 1800), the train in the station can be dispatched as soon as the one ahead of it is at the bottom of the first drop.
If the block brake was not there, capacity would be dramatically lower, there would be almost no point in running three trains, you might as well just run two and would achieve around 1050-1100 hours.

As for the questioning of the placement of the block brake, I really think it's just put where it is best in the design sometime half way or three quarters of the way through the ride.
Raptor for example, who's block brake is placed around half way through the ride still achieves 1600 hours and is designed to stack at all. Without the block brake , there would be no point in running three trains. This goes for all 3 train b&m's.
 

rtotheizzo17

Hyper Poster
^ There theoretical is listed at 1,710 (which I would find hard to believe considering the slow loading process of wing riders). I would find it very hard to believe that Gatekeeper is hitting 1,800.

My guess is the Point uses a turnstile count that you check every hour?
 

bmac

Giga Poster
Great Adventure uses it, too. What the post two posts above mine is describing is the ride's theoretical capacity, which is never achieved with any loading style on any ride ever. Three train block systems are great and all, but their added capacity is debatable when the ride time takes around 3 minutes or less to complete. El Toro, Bizarro, and Nitro are great examples of what I'm describing with 3 train block systems and benefits.

While El Toro only has 2 trains with 36 riders per train, its cycle time takes 3 minutes 20 seconds and its target capacity is 1080 people per hour. Theoretical capacity says 1500 people per hour but that is literally impossible due to the cable lift system. Bizarro has 3 trains with 32 riders per train with the same cycle time but its target capacity is 1184 (we're trained to expect 1183 but it's only 1 person). Bizarro has a theoretical capacity of 1710 people per hour, but again it is impossible considering the time in a cycle taken to drop the floors and dispatch the train. Nitro has a target capacity of around 1500 riders per hour with the same riders per train and cycle time (I'm gonna have to ask a crew member for the exact cycle time since I'm not trained to operate it), but that's simply because of math with having a 3rd train compared to El Toro.

It is arguable at times whether 2 trains or 3 trains are the better system, but if the track is shorter than 4500 feet long then its really debatable whether or not 2 or 3 trains are a better system. A coaster like Kumba can pull 3 trains better than Bizarro can simply because the dropping floors on Bizarro add time to the cycle, instead of just having the train stop and people leave and board the train. Nitro has the length to not worry about stacking trains and just keep the trains rolling through, since by the time one train reaches the top of the lift hill the second train is ready to be dispatched and the third train is moving down the final brake run. El Toro's cycle time is restricted due to the cable lift and the 3 block system it runs, which means a train cannot be dispatched until the other one completely finishes its ride cycle and is coming back through the final brake run. Intamin says we can dispatch a train as soon as the other one reaches the top of the lift but in actuality we cannot dispatch until the catch car reaches the home position and the other train is entering the brake run cause if the other train stops on the lift hill then we have to call in maintenance to restart the lift hill (and send an attendant up 188 feet of stairs which is god awful to do).
 

Hyde

Matt SR
Staff member
Moderator
Social Media Team
MCBR is only one factor of rider capacity. Ride length, load time, etc. are other pieces of the puzzle as well. That is to say MCBR are not a sole determiner of rider capacity.

Also, some of the rider capacities that have been thrown out appear to be at odds with those reported on RCDB. According to RCDB, rider throughput is:

Raptor - 1800 rph
Gatekeeper - 1710 rph
Banshee - 1650 rph

P.S. rtotheizz - Yes, turnstile count is how rph is tracked.
 

bmac

Giga Poster
Hyde trust me, that's theoretical capacity. Actual target capacity for parks is closer to 2/3rds of the theoretical capacity. So Raptor would be closer to 1200 riders per hour and Banshee would be closer to 1050. RCDB only reads off theoretical capacity, and tons of other sites do, too.
 
Top