Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Thorpe Park | Hyperia | Mack Hyper Coaster | 2024

TPoseOnTantrum said:
Give it an airtime hill and make the Brit thoosies happy, c’mon
Click to expand...
The original proposal did feature banked airtime hills though.

In regards to the ride's length being extended, I'm not expecting it to get any longer though it would be nice if there were two more elements thrown in to make the ending grander. Though personally, I will not be a happy bunny if the first half changes. The first half is perfection.
 
JoshC. said:
Forgive me for continually posting random pictures, but here's an overlay of the two plans, which is probably the clearest look at how the development area has been extended:



As Nicky says, the "design development" line is interesting, and gives cause to believe layout changes. But even then, it is a broad term. It could just refer to the design of how the park's engineering team access the supports for maintenance purposes. It could be to add theming (something which was highly absent from the consultation).

Now, if this for a layout change, I have an idea for what it could be. And I don't expect it to be anything drastic.

Many people noted that the ride takes a lot of speed into the suspected splash zone area, and that that area could be quite trimmed. And even if not, it does have a lot of speed and doesn't do a lot.
I expect that the short layout is, in part, a creative choice. The ride very much looks designed to be big, fast-paced and hard hitting. Rather than creating a long, drawn out experience, it seems to be a "throw everything at you as quickly as possible" experience, designed so that when you hit the brakes, you're left stunned, and begging for more in a good way. You won't feel short changed, but you'll want to go round again.

So a potential adaptation to the layout would be as follows:
View attachment 16309


Now forgive the crude drawing, but let me explain what this would achieve:

-A straight section post-splashdown, to include one or two powerful airtime hills.
-A new turnaround, which could be dragged out for some sustained forces, or be quirky / different (like the other turnaround)
-Give more space pre-brake run for another airtime hill, rather than the airtime moment post-turnaround as currently suggested.

My particular thought on the final point is that they could create a 'double down' airtime moment which is similar to Loggers Leap's drop. This would be in the exact same position as Loggers drop, and serve as a reminder/Easter egg/reference/whatever you want to call it to the ride (something that Thorpe and John Burton, the likely Creative Lead of the project, love doing).

This would address the concern which a lot of people had about the ride's ending, whilst keeping in line with the (what I expect to be) feel of the ride. May not be everyone's cup of tea or what people want, but it's what I feel would be most likely. Equally, I think this is a sufficient change to improve the ride.

Obviously, this is all speculation. But I don't see anything more significant than this.
Click to expand...

The new area seems to fit right against the remains of Loggers leap, maybe suggesting it’s demolition is officially part of the the same project?

Also, the new boundary has a little jut out at the footer on the top right, which would suggest the footer is in the same place, which would suggest that element is remaining the same, which suggests everything preceding that element is also the same.

Then the new triangular area on the right might just be staging area.
 
Nothing to add except @BenJacobs post looks oddly satisfying on my device.

Screenshot-20220221-191048-Samsung-Internet.jpg
 
Oh please please please be a longer layout. 🤞🏻🤞🏻🤞🏻
I haven't posted in this thread since the Mack(?) layout was revealed, mainly because I've been left so deflated by the super short layout that I couldn't bring myself to comment. Don't get me wrong, I love that it's (probably) a Mack, I love that they're going for the UK height record, I love the intensity of the layout and the wacky elements but my God... I hate that it's such a short ride. I was always secretly hoping that the ride we've been shown was only representative of the high points of the structure, those that would be visible to the surrounding area, and that the final design would feature an extra 'lap', as it were, of the area, with lots of low-to-the-ground twistiness that wouldn't be visible and wouldn't need to be consulted on with Joe public. If this amendment even hints at the possibility of something a bit more lengthy then consider me mildly more excited than before.
 
as much as I would love a larger layout, I won't be shocked if this is just like they realized they needed that space for all the construction site infrastructure, or something equally boring as that
 
I agree. I do think it's odd that the new perimeter lines up exactly with the path of loggers leap, so my bet is that they just want to tear out the trough all the way around. However, I really would like to be wrong (as I often am) and they add some bunny hills to the end. Please Thorpe, do us a solid mate xo
 
It would be nice if Thorpe had increased the length, or even withheld part of the layout from the public consultation because it was sheltered by the park, however I just can’t realistically see that being the case and think this would be more likely for the removal of the rest of Loggers that is still standing.
 
There are two things that make me think it won't (just) be demolishing the entirety of Loggers:

1. Merlin don't demolish stuff unless they need to. They keep things for as long as physically possible. If something can be left SBNO they will. Look at Thorpe and Loggers and Slammer as examples. Towers only removed the likes of Submission and Ripsaw because they would be too obvious if left standing.
They won't decide to just remove bits of Loggers they don't need to. They will remove what needs to be removed and nothing else. Perhaps a cynical, somewhat narrow-minded, view here, but I can't see that happening.

2. Usually, you don't need permission to remove a ride. You just...remove it. There's exceptions and caveats of course, but generally speaking, parks are free to simply take something down if they want to. It's another reason why UK parks like to keep rides SBNO until they're replaced: when it comes to planning applications, they can say "look, we have something here, we're just replacing it with something else".

If this is just for the removal of Loggers and nothing else, it's possible they're including this addition because it covers themselves in case someone moans about work happening outside of the permitted zone. Would be a grey area I guess.


I still think the likely course here is that they're extending the zone for practicality purposes: either for ease of construction for the ride, or for extra engineering / maintenance routes once the ride is open. That would definitely fall under "design developments". But equally, a change in layout isn't something to completely rule out, and would also fall under design developments.
 
JoshC. said:
1. Merlin don't demolish stuff unless they need to. They keep things for as long as physically possible. If something can be left SBNO they will. Look at Thorpe and Loggers and Slammer as examples. Towers only removed the likes of Submission and Ripsaw because they would be too obvious if left standing.
They won't decide to just remove bits of Loggers they don't need to. They will remove what needs to be removed and nothing else. Perhaps a cynical, somewhat narrow-minded, view here, but I can't see that happening.
Click to expand...

They might want to remove the loggers trough that crosses the water because it will be in sight from the viewing plaza they're going to add?
 
Sometimes, the real world doesn't line up properly with the plans, and minor adjustments have to be made to get the plan to fit at the edges, to avoid situations like the toilet roof "adjustments" that were required for the Smiler build at the Towers.
Looks like a bit more land was required to fit in the landscaping to me.
 
It's also worth noting that Thorpe Park's timeline, in their own words, currently puts them in the "Review consultation responses and final design development - Jan/Feb 2022" point in time.

Spring is when they plan to submit final plans, so we don't have long to wait :) They also think they could have a planning decision by 'late spring / early summer' suggesting the plans will be submitted very early spring too...
 
I'm trying to rationalise why they could have made it longer as unfortunately I seriously doubt they've listened to enthusiasts and whopped on a few bunny hops for our pleasure.

There could be an engineering reason, if the ride has too much speed going into the brakes the extra cost of maintaining those brakes (which will undoubtedly wear faster than they would if the train hit them slower) over the planned lifespan of the ride is greater than the cost of extra track and the associated works, that would justify extending the ride to bleed off some more speed. Trims come with an ongoing running and maintenance cost so an extension could feasibly be preferable.

Effectively, what I'm suggesting/theorising is the additional CapEx would need to be justifiable by reduced maintenance costs down the line, as an extension by itself isn't going to make any difference to the attendance drive the new coaster will generate already.

This is all wild speculation however with absolutely no data to back it.
 
Tonkso said:
I'm trying to rationalise why they could have made it longer as unfortunately I seriously doubt they've listened to enthusiasts and whopped on a few bunny hops for our pleasure.

There could be an engineering reason, if the ride has too much speed going into the brakes the extra cost of maintaining those brakes (which will undoubtedly wear faster than they would if the train hit them slower) over the planned lifespan of the ride is greater than the cost of extra track and the associated works, that would justify extending the ride to bleed off some more speed. Trims come with an ongoing running and maintenance cost so an extension could feasibly be preferable.

This is all wild speculation however with absolutely no data to back it.
Click to expand...
Regardless of if it's an Intamin or Mack the main brakes are contactless so don't wear, so that makes no difference
 
Magnetic, no? They will still deteriorate over time regardless. I'm not sure of the physics regarding how speed would affect this, but they will need periodic replacement.
 
Tonkso said:
Magnetic, no? They will still deteriorate over time regardless. I'm not sure of the physics regarding how speed would affect this, but they will need periodic replacement.
Click to expand...
Heat stress is probably the most likely impact on the fins themselves. Equal and opposite reaction says all the mounts for those fins (on the track and train) will be working harder if the train is hitting the brakes faster, which in turn could mean shorter lifespans.
 
Tonkso said:
Magnetic, no? They will still deteriorate over time regardless. I'm not sure of the physics regarding how speed would affect this, but they will need periodic replacement.
Click to expand...
No they don't, in comparison to old school physical brake pads anyhow
 
Hixee said:
Heat stress is probably the most likely impact on the fins themselves. Equal and opposite reaction says all the mounts for those fins (on the track and train) will be working harder if the train is hitting the brakes faster, which in turn could mean shorter lifespans.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm thinking about. The actual real world implications of this I don't know however. Happy to be proven wrong of course but logic states the greater a force applied to something the quicker it's going to wear out. The difference in heat is probably so marginal though, and I'd like to see real data on the relationship between speed and eddy currents, but the idea that they don't wear out is nonsense, there's still a 'pull' force being applied to those brakes as the magnetic field strives to bring the train and brake fins together, and that stress is ultimately going to be felt on the mounting brackets and fixings. Both on the brake run and train itself.
 
Tonkso said:
That's what I'm thinking about. The actual real world implications of this I don't know however. Happy to be proven wrong of course but logic states the greater a force applied to something the quicker it's going to wear out. The difference in heat is probably so marginal though, and I'd like to see real data on the relationship between speed and eddy currents, but the idea that they don't wear out is nonsense, there's still a 'pull' force being applied to those brakes as the magnetic field strives to bring the train and brake fins together, and that stress is ultimately going to be felt on the mounting brackets and fixings. Both on the brake run and train itself.
Click to expand...
In terms of heat - the energy balance itself wouldn't be too hard to do if you had enough data for the trains and fins (weight, materials, etc), but even without any numbers it's pretty easy to see the effect of speed on the energy dissipated.

If you make the assumption that the brakes are 100% converting kinetic energy of the train into thermal energy in the fins (not a bad 'undergraduate engineering' assumption), and the kinetic energy of the train can be represented by this formula (high school physics):
{\displaystyle E_{k}={\frac {1}{2}}mv^{2}}
{with E = kinetic energy, m = mass, v = velocity for those who aren't familiar}

Then it's plain to see. Double the speed of the train, quadruple the kinetic energy. Whichever way you cut it, that's a LOT more energy to have to deal with.

Ps. I have little to no opinion on the expanded plot of land. I doubt it's a longer layout, but I don't have a cogent argument for that. I suspect it's just a logistical thing. I'm just here to answer the engineering questions. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top