What's new

Thorpe Park | Project Exodus | Mack Hyper Coaster? (UK's tallest coaster) | 2023/2024

CrashCoaster

CF Legend
So for Merlin I guess it’s a big coaster, from this Recreation it comes in as their 5th biggest coaster they have, here is their top 10 ( I think )

4409ft Colossus-heide
3838ft Smiler
3264ft Mammut
3248ft Bobbahn
3133ft Exodus
2788ft Colossus-TP
2755ft Galactica
2608ft Wicker man
2543ft Swarm
2532ft Damonen

Quite interesting, I like that there is the bobsleigh in 4th and wicker man a coaster that is “small” is the 8th biggest coaster in all their parks 😅
Only makes it the UK's 8th longest operating coaster though (if you include Fforest Coaster, which I do).
 

roomraider

Best Topic Starter
I think the shocking thing is that if that 3133ft (955m) length is correct then its incredibly short for its height. It is infact shorter than every major wide B&M Dive Machine. (Sans Obivion and G5)

I did a quick calculation with as many hypers as i could remember. This graph shows Hyper coasters including the big B&M dive machines as a function of their height vs their length. So if a coaster is 100ft long and 50ft high then its percentage would be 50 as the height is 50% of the length and a 100ft long 1ft high coaster would have a percentage of 1.

Basically a lower number means the ride does more with its height. And a higher number means the ride does less with its height.
Hyper Graph.JPG
Exodus finishes dead last, below every B&M big dive machine and with only really Thunder Dolphin for company. (DC = Dive Coaster at Shanghai Happy Valley)
Note - Orion uses 287ft height rather than 300ft drop, with 300ft as its number it drops to between leviathan and I305
Note 2 - Changing Phantoms Revenge to its drop instead of height puts it at 7.125 between DC and Thunder Dolphin

Whichever way i look at it. Exodus is damn short for its height.

And considering the way it goes from very tall elements to actually quite short elements very quickly. This ride could be trimmed to hell to keep the speed down on those last few elements, I hope im wrong but in order to keep the speeds managable its the way i see it going.
 
Last edited:

StevenX

Roller Poster
And yet Thunder Dolphin doesn't feel like a short ride, really - although part of that is because it's slow as hell in parts, admittedly...
 

CrashCoaster

CF Legend
Someone on Coaster Bot Discord re-created Exodus as accurate and close to the plans as possible, and the length came out at 1,010 metres (~3,314ft). That would put the coaster just ahead of Thunder Dolphin on the chart. That being said it will still be very short for its height. What we can determine though, is that the coaster will be at least 3,000ft long with a possibility of being around 1km or a little more. Will be interesting to see who created the most accurate pre-creation stats-wise when the park announce the coaster.
 

coasteraddict10

Roller Poster
The final hill dropping into a helix rising up to one final pop of airtime seems like it would be a better finale that what we're currently getting, for ride this tall it's not so much the length that's the problem imo but the fact that there's only 5 elevation changes (immelmann, weird overbank thing, dive loop, twisty hill, final hill) after the drop, if there another ride of this height that has so few ups and downs after the drop?

Looks exciting either way.
 

Niles

Hyper Poster
Little update, over the past few weeks the relevant authorities have been giving their responses to the planning application for project Exodus, from skim reading they all seem to have no objections to the construction as long as some basic conditions are met.

So as of now it’s all looking good, hopefully they will get planning permission soon.

The consolation responses are on the planning page here:
 

ricky coasters

Roller Poster
So this Exodus concept was supposed to be a proposal in the surveys... was there ever any alternate versions of how this ride could look like that they showed in them, different concepts but of this ride? I sit n wonder how much the plans woulda changed if people had "against" opinions
 

Matt N

CF Legend
So this Exodus concept was supposed to be a proposal in the surveys... was there ever any alternate versions of how this ride could look like that they showed in them, different concepts but of this ride? I sit n wonder how much the plans woulda changed if people had "against" opinions
There was an alternative proposal shown in the full planning application that beared a striking resemblance to a B&M Hyper Coaster: https://coasterforce.com/forums/thr...-tallest-coaster-2023-2024.45090/post-1131069

However, the park stated that it was scrapped for practicality and cost reasons as opposed to anything to do with the locals; I believe they cited wanting to keep the Old Town food outlets that this layout would have required the demolition of (due to cost reasons and practicality) as a reason why this alternative layout was not proposed.

In terms of whether "against" reactions would have changed the ride; any negative reactions from locals would likely have rejected the nature of a 236ft ride overall as opposed to anything to do with the specific ride we're getting. While of course some factors could make a slight difference (for instance, number of high points or whatever), most people against Exodus were probably ideologically opposed to a 236ft ride in general as opposed to being opposed to any particular element of the ride we're getting. Britain's theme parks often have at least a certain percentage of locals who are quite vocally against rides that can be significantly seen or heard outside of the park, so I'd be very surprised if Exodus hasn't generated at least a small bit of opposition from some locals by virtue of its raw size. To this group, it wouldn't make any difference whether the ride was a B&M hyper or a Mack hyper or something else entirely; it's still a massive roller coaster, so they're still against it.

With that in mind, I'm thinking that the locals being opposed to this ride would have seen it scrapped entirely as opposed to an alternative 200ft coaster being presented.
 

Niles

Hyper Poster
It appears they have started to drill Into the ground to see how far down foundations will have to be.
BF32FEEB-FAEF-4039-AB0B-0A20649652EA.png

Plans have come through as to where they will be storing delivery’s and how they will make there way to the site.

The below also seems to show that a new queue line entrance and exit will be made for Creek Freak Massacre so it looks like it will be back this year.
C424BA59-0336-48BA-8417-E7A9D6B1B0D2.jpeg
6664E390-6CFD-4D66-85F6-89211F8FA532.jpeg

The access road to the coasters area has started to be cleared.
01ED6061-7ACA-43AF-814F-B05157D5B060.jpg

Also apparently it’s been here all season but I guessed I missed that this graphic had been added to the right of Burger King.
7B3FD4DE-0F77-4E89-AF01-BB61FA04F20C.png

Source & Source
 
Last edited:

JoshC.

Strata Poster
Some additional points to raise to the above:

-The drilling was for soil sampling so they know what they are dealing with when putting in footers etc., and is purely for investigative purposes. Fairly standard at this point in the process.
The drill has also in fact already left site I believe.

-Creek Freak Massacre might not 100% be returning, but seems incredibly likely. The plans above are from a Construction Management document, which outlines how the park will proceed with construction, as well as when the site will be active, etc

-The service road is a weird one. The document shows that the they are creating a route behind the Burger King up to the old train station (where Lumber Jump was). This is also roughly where the maintenance building for the coaster will go. This joins onto a pre existing service road.
However, they have also effectively bulldozed the path from what was Roots of Evil's exit (the penultimate photo in Niles' post), right up to Platform 15. I can't see any reason why that's been necessary, but it could be that they're also going to use that as a service / access route too. In the past, that route was where the park's old railway was, and could also be used as a service route for some, smaller, vehicles.

I do like the graphic though. It's a clear nod to this, but subtle enough that anyone who knows nothing about Project Exodus can just see it, go 'huh, that looks nice', and move on.
 

CrashCoaster

CF Legend
A guy on Coaster Bot Discord has created a highly accurate re-creation of Exodus, making detailed use of the official planning documents. This has been a long time in the works but it's probably the best and most accurate pre-creation I've seen, down to the smallest bits of profiling (even the support structure is a close match). That first drop looks nuts!


Video by Jamie Rogers (Jambles).
 

Swat

Mega Poster
A guy on Coaster Bot Discord has created a highly accurate re-creation of Exodus, making detailed use of the official planning documents. This has been a long time in the works but it's probably the best and most accurate pre-creation I've seen, down to the smallest bits of profiling (even the support structure is a close match). That first drop looks nuts!


Video by Jamie Rogers (Jambles).
Looks slow.
 

cocoa

Mega Poster
i used to think rollercoaster should be spending more of their `dead' time eg before lifts doing **** like outward banked turns, but now they're actually doing it IRL, all I can think about is my thighs against the restraints. rip rerides
 

JoshC.

Strata Poster
Going to throw in some extra discussion related to the planning application. Very nitty gritty boring stuff mind. It's also briefly talked about in Jack's second video.

Lots of documents have been uploaded to the original application, featuring feedback and responses from the groups that have been consulted about the plans. In the past with Thorpe applications, this is just a formality, and there's never normally any objections.

However, a slightly curveball has been thrown: the Environment Agency (EA) aren't totally happy. I won't lie and say I fully understand it, but I'll give my interpretation:
In short, part of the coaster is being built in a high risk flood zone area. In fact, the only pieces of concern are supports. Across the country, developments in such areas are usually only approved if they are deemed suitably appropriate, and a roller coaster isn't usually deemed as such. So, the EA would have to "object in principle".

A response from the planning team is also on the application. Effectively, when the park submitted their most recent Mid Term Development Plan (MTDP), there was a level of agreement with the council that the park can build (minimally) with these particular flood zone areas, as it would fail to take into account all the mitigations the park make. It was in fact said to be "non sensical" to outright refuse applications on these grounds. This circles back to what I've said plenty of times with regards to Thorpe and the local council having a good working relationship and solid communication about developments.

This agreement has been adhered to in the past, for example with Swarm's application, and noted in one form or another for pretty much every investment since. The trouble is, this agreement was made back in 2009. Rules have changed, people involved have moved on and these things can be opened up to interpretation. The park have relied heavily on this agreement, and not really expanded upon it much, hence the EA's objection in principle.

Furthermore, in the response from the planning team, they outline that the EA do not have the power to actually "object" to the application, but rather advise the local council that they are not satisfied with what has been said. But ultimately, it would be up to the council to decide whether to formally object or not based on that advice. Oooh, burn.

The EA also have a second concern. Some of the building associated with the development (namely: the ride exit photo booth, ride exit shop and ride queue line shop) are below the design flood level, meaning they're at greater risk of being impacted by flood. Again, this would mean that the EA could object on technical grounds. This has also been addressed. The park will be saving one of the existing buildings in the Old Town area: the building opposite Rocky Express / adjacent to the old Loggers Leap station (it used to be an F&B place; a noodle bar being the most memorable incarnation). This will be transformed into the ride's exit shop. As such, the park want to keep the shop and photo booth on the same level (for accessibility purposes). Equally, the queue line shop will be level with the queue line. It's said that because the park have been able to run to area with no impact from floods like this, they can run the new area similarly.

This is all very technical, very fernickty stuff. And again, I don't claim to know all this, so I could be mis-interpreting. However, from speaking to others who do know a bit more about this, it seems to be a case that the plans might have over-simplified some of their plans and justifications about the placements in the flood zones. Maybe they've also been a bit hopeful on leaning on a 13 year old agreement saving them too.
I also note they've also had to make some additional clarifications about the noise impact (or rather, lack of) from the coaster too.
So it's clear that this is being well scrutinized by a lot of parties.
At the same time, it does seem like the park have all bases covered.

As I say, this is the first time I can think of that I've seen any form of 'objection' in relation to a Thorpe Park planning application (that wasn't from a local resident).
You have to go back to 2006 for the last time I can think of a fuss being kicked up over anything - the park tried adding lights to their coaster track above the car park entrance, when the application specifically said it wouldn't have lights. Park were clearly in the wrong there.
You have to go all the way back to 2005 to find the last time a planning application related to the park was refused (it was to illuminate the bus stop outside the park).
So this is a rare thing, and the fact the EA are opening up for rebuttal is a healthy sign I suppose (and probably the standard thing in these cases?).

I don't think this will cause the application to be rejected, or stop the ride being built or anything like that. Could it cause some delay? Possibly. But equally, it could all be pretty straightforward. But, again, I don't know my stuff here, so my opinion means very little.

tl;dr
1. The Environment Agency have two concerns about the application, which they say could cause them to object to Project Exodus' planning application
2. Responses have been issued over these two concerns, both of which seem pretty solid.
3. This probably will end up being ultimately inconsequential and we'll still get a new coaster.
 

CrashCoaster

CF Legend
For anyone interested, here is an accurate re-creation of B&M's bid for the coaster, accurate to the overhead plans, made by Jamie Rogers (Jambles), the guy who made the accurate pre-creation I posted further up the page.


This layout comes out 1,297m (4,255ft) long. While I do prefer the Mack bid personally, I am curious why it is so much shorter than this hyper. As far as B&M hypers go, it looks fairly generic to me but it would've solved the UK airtime issue.
 

Lori Marie Loud

Hyper Poster
A guy on Coaster Bot Discord has created a highly accurate re-creation of Exodus, making detailed use of the official planning documents. This has been a long time in the works but it's probably the best and most accurate pre-creation I've seen, down to the smallest bits of profiling (even the support structure is a close match). That first drop looks nuts!


Video by Jamie Rogers (Jambles).
I have so many questions.
 

Matt N

CF Legend
Perhaps controversially; having recently ridden Silver Star and had my love for the ride type confirmed, I think I prefer the look of the B&M proposal to the ride we’re getting based on that recreation.

To me, it looks to have far more of an overt airtime focus than the Exodus we’re getting (while I’m sure Exodus will have airtime, don’t get me wrong, and quite strong airtime at that, I’d be hesitant to call it an overtly airtime-centred layout based on what we know), which would have fitted the UK beautifully, in my view (particularly seeing as the country lacks sustained airtime like B&M Hypers offer far more than it lacks brief airtime, in my view).

I also feel that the B&M proposal would have filled more of a gap within Thorpe Park’s lineup; a non-inverting, rerideable thrill coaster in the vein of a B&M Hyper Coaster is something that Thorpe and arguably the UK industry as a whole lacks at present, and Thorpe has no non-inverting thrill coaster aside from Stealth, whereas Exodus, as brilliant as it looks, will ultimately be another variation on a sit-down looping coaster. Granted, I’d imagine it’ll be quite a different variation on this paradigm to Thorpe’s other rides, but it will be a sit-down looping coaster with its elements almost predominantly consisting of inversions, like many of Thorpe’s other rides, all the same.

I apologise if this makes me come across as “bitter that my prediction was wrong” or whatever, and I don’t want to imply that I’m not grateful for the ride we’re getting or don’t think it looks great (I think Exodus has an awesome-looking layout, and it’s certainly very unique!), but having now seen this alternative proposal, I do personally think it looks more my cup of tea than the Exodus being built. When I came off Silver Star last week, I’ll admit I did think “wouldn’t it have been great if Thorpe was getting something like this?” (although as I said above, that’s not to say that the Exodus we’re getting doesn’t look great; I’m very excited for it!), and I actually think the proposed B&M Hyper layout looks pretty neat, myself!
 
Top