The True Story of Drachen Fire
the messanger
rollercoasters and go to parks you understand the incredibly complex
industry that surrounds them. There is so much meaningful content on this
group, so much interesting analysis, but it's so watered down by silliness
and misunderstanding. Without revealing anything conclusive about who I am,
there is one bit of information which I finally feel I can release without
threatening myself too severely, and maybe it'll shut some of your yappers.
Rewind. The year is 1989, June. Anheuser-Busch's theme park division enters
negotiation with a spinoff group of Intamin AG regarding the potential for a
number of new attractions down the line. The dollar values discussed are
astronomical, but the firm is suggesting it can do things that have never
been done before with regard to capacity, to reliability, and to rider
experience. The five or six executives privy to the demonstration are
understandably phenomenally impressed. Having sat through a ridiculous
number of presentations from contractors ranging from Arrow Dynamics, at the
time the park's tried and true supplier, to a few anonymous Japanese firms,
the decision is quickly made to pursue the relationship.
The firm becomes B&M shortly thereafter and makes a splash with their first
ride. Meanwhile, a few more meetings into negotiations a portfolio of ride
layouts is revealed at a meeting as part of a joint package plan - under the
name of a single contract to B&M, Busch is to build two rides. The price tag
covers the design phase, which has been fully completed as of Jan 1 1990,
and the construction and servicing of the rides.
Fast foreward two weeks: Busch publishes first quarter earnings reports and
all of a sudden one of their support bank ducks out of a loan agreement
about to be signed. The company scrambles unsuccesfully to find another
lender and reports to B&M that the earlier of the two coaster projects is
simply going to have to be scrapped. However, the down payment has already
been made so Busch secures the rights to produce a ride of the given layout,
figuring on recontracting the firm down the line when funding is easier to
come by. However, a surprise visit is made to the offices by a number of
engineers and executives from Arrow who had been following the production
calendar for the big deal. Seeing it fall through, they drop an attractive
proposal: they think they can build a ride of similar magnitude for a much
smaller price tag and they can have it done in time for the same release
date. Intrigued, and running short on time, Busch hands over the plans to
Arrow for a full estimate. After a scant 2 weeks, Arrow replies that after a
few minor modifications, their equipment should be sound to produce the
ride. The deal is signed, the ride is built in record time, it opens and
runs well enough. Anheuser Busch is thrilled with the arrangement, launches
into an incredible marketing campaign of the new ride, and follows through
on their deal to build Kumba next door.
What was lacking from the Arrow contract was a service agreement. Busch
already has an in house service contractor at the time accustomed to dealing
with Arrow track and technology, and they pay a deposit to that firm to
service the new attraction. For a while this works impeccably - the ride
works on understood and proven technologies, and maintenance is fine.
Ridership is a little low, maybe, but the marketing department predicts that
the ride is still drawing guests, they just aren't riding it. The park
resolves to make some improvements to the area.
1995 the first signs of problems show. Here's where things get interesting.
The service contractor who has been servicing the ride goes under after
major litigation regarding illegal operations for an unrelated field. Busch
hires the contractor Arrow was originally offering to do a rapid inspection
of Drachen Fire. The ride is reported to be in *almost* perfect condition
but a few of the structural rivets on a new section of track inserted after
a 1994 renovation are suffering stress damage. The modification, the removal
of the final corkscrew, was engineered by Arrow per the parks request as
part of the improvement package, but was installed by the defunct service
contractor. The park replaces the rivets and continues operating the ride,
making only a minor technical report to the shareholders. The new service
contractor regularly inspects the ride and keeps it largely operational
although some additional minor structural changes are made after the
contractor recalculates stress loads on the steel used to support some
portions of the ride.
1996 things get really ugly. The winter didn't treat the new section of
track well. There's a major stress fracture across a structural beam, and it
has to be replaced. It turns out the old contractor was using shoddy steel
to replace parts of the train and structure, and it's been deteriorating.
The ride is considered safe to operate on a two year lisence, but a
replacement package is deemed necessary to keep the ride operating
inevitably. One of the trains is completely overhauled.
1997 the ride has lots of downtime. The park is unable to replace the
brittle parts in the winter because the stress of construction in the cold
are deemed unsafe, so the park is scrambling to replace the parts in the
warmer summer months by rotating operations. At season close, much work
remains to be done, and the park is in the midst of paying off a very large
contract (made unsurprisingly to B&M) regarding Alpengeist. Further
negotiations are in place for Apollo's Chariot.
1998 The coaster's last season. A meeting is held to determine the total
cost for the renovations. The number is going to be much higher than
originally thought - a large portion of the track, improperly supported, has
bent and will need replacement to get the reliscensing. The park puts the
project on hold, deciding to leave the ride shut down for the 99' season.
And there you have it. In 2000 the ride was formally scrapped from the rehab
list, and Busch published a report on the defects and offered to sell the
"well designed ride" for a steal. No one wanted it, although several
inquiries were made, because the cost of repairs would be so great.
Last year, a contract was signed with a demolitions group to remove the
ride.
There you have it. Satisfied?
Mike Garrison
the messanger <yoss...@catch22.net> wrote in message
news:sgAg8.12470$va....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
the basis of why it was removed, but thanks for the "details".
Mike Garrison
am. Thank you. But for the most part I knew the basic reason why it closed
and never reopened, which is basically what you said, minus some of the
details.
Rastus O'Ginga
<yoss...@catch22.net> wrote:
>ride.
>There you have it. Satisfied?
>
Yes, thanks Bu.., um, sir.
MAkes sense. I always knew the bullshit sound and low ridership
stories were wrong. If Anaconda still operates, so should DF. And,
noise shouldn't matter to a 10 year old coaster. ALso explains why no
one bought it. What a shame.
Sounds to me like there should be a lawsuit against the maintenance
contractor.
Rastus O'Ginga
Winner of the 2nd Annual C. Montgomery Burns Award for
Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence.
ANTI-BED-WETTING-LIBELRAL DISCLAIMER:
The content of this post, and all previous posts made by this user, is 100%
opinion. Any similarity between this post and the truth is purely
coincidental. Anyone who reads this post and draws conclusions about it is
doing so by their choice. How they use those conclusions to direct their
own lives and opinions from that point forward is absolutely a result of
their own cognitive abilities and is in no way related or legally binded to
this poster. NO individual, business entity, or legal authority should use
the content of this post, or any other post by the originator, in whole, or
in part, to assist in making a decision that could affect the lives of any
of the inhabitants of planet Earth, since the content may not be true.
JeffersonGuy19
Keith Hopkins
news:sgAg8.12470$va....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> rollercoasters and go to parks you understand the incredibly complex
> industry that surrounds them.
Thank you. There are few things that make me sit up and pay attention more
than such a condescending statement.
> Without revealing anything conclusive about who I am,
> there is one bit of information which I finally feel I can release without
> threatening myself too severely, and maybe it'll shut some of your
yappers.
Again, thank you. I can think of no better way to establish credibility
than to make anonymous statements AND be insulting at the same time.
<Story about Busch, B&M, Arrow, and other companies snipped>
> There you have it. Satisfied?
Yes. I'm satisfied that you've written an interesting story that few, if
any, RRC readers could possibly corroborate. You have some interesting
points, but the whole "anonymous industry insider" aspect of your message
renders your statements questionable. The insulting tone of your writing
doesn't help your case either.
--
Keith Hopkins
suss...@blockvisi.com (clear the block to reply)
"U2 is what happens when a punk rock band overstays its welcome."
C. Montgomery Burns
This raises more questions than it answers.
> Some of you are such children. <snip> shut some of your yappers.
That raises questions about validity right away.
Hmmm...Busch had trouble getting a loan? Arrow could build so much
cheaper? Where did they get the money to pay Arrow? If Arrow was to
build so much cheaper why did they use the most expensive materials
(i.e. tubular steel beams instead of the usual Arrow scaffolding).
We've come to expect certain elements in every B&M, yet this design
does not look anything like any of the other B&M projects--not even
close.
Lots of parks have replaced parts in the winter, if they were all set
to do it in the winter, I find it hard to believe they couldn't get it
done in the spring or summer. Who on earth who discover a
deteriorating beam, and then say we can get two more years out of it?
> At season close, much work
> remains to be done, and the park is in the midst of paying off a very large
> contract (made unsurprisingly to B&M) regarding Alpengeist. Further
> negotiations are in place for Apollo's Chariot.
That large contract was for three B&M inverted coasters, and two were
installed in 1997.
> 1998 The coaster's last season. A meeting is held to determine the total
> cost for the renovations. The number is going to be much higher than
> originally thought - a large portion of the track, improperly supported, has
> bent and will need replacement to get the reliscensing. The park puts the
> project on hold, deciding to leave the ride shut down for the 99' season.
> And there you have it.
Again, I find it hard to believe that they can't get replacements
parts delivered or installed, and instead just shut the ride down.
> In 2000 the ride was formally scrapped from the rehab
> list, and Busch published a report on the defects and offered to sell the
> "well designed ride" for a steal.
Except that it wasn't listed for a steal, it was actually overpriced.
> No one wanted it, although several
> inquiries were made, because the cost of repairs would be so great.
> Last year, a contract was signed with a demolitions group to remove the
> ride.
> There you have it.
> Satisfied?
No, not at all, but thank you for the amusing story.
C. Montgomery Burns
JackTheRipper
billy
"C. Montgomery Burns" <st...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3407b059.02030...@posting.google.com...
Janna Rasmussen
wrote:
>"the messanger" <yoss...@catch22.net> wrote in message news:<sgAg8.12470$va....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>
>This raises more questions than it answers.
>
>> Some of you are such children. <snip> shut some of your yappers.
>
>That raises questions about validity right away.
As does the fact that "the messanger" also posted as "Cindy Howard"
from Busch Gardens' PR office with a different story about why Drachen
Fire closed.
-Janna
Douglas Kell
ridden DF why was it built by Arrow but Kumba built by B&M?
Douggie
"the messanger" <yoss...@catch22.net> wrote in message
news:sgAg8.12470$va....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Rastus O'Ginga
<dougla...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>if I read this right, and I am an english rollercoaster fan who has never
>ridden DF why was it built by Arrow but Kumba built by B&M?
>Douggie
B&M couldn't build them both in the time frame necessary. This part
of the story is most definitely true and well known.
DF is Arrow's version of Kumba.
AJ
>>
>>
basis of why it was removed, but thanks for the "details".
>>
>am. Thank you. But for the most part I knew the basic reason why it closed
>and never reopened, which is basically what you said, minus some of the
>details.
LoL... was I the only one that got that?
-Adrenaline Junky of Florida
*Upcoming Trips*
-March ?? - Orlando
(was supposed to be February trip, but things happen!)
Nicholas Slate
>ridden DF why was it built by Arrow but Kumba built by B&M?
I thought it had said this in the story...but I'll try and cover this from what
I've read on here.
Busch had worked to design the Drachen Fire/Kumba design with the friendly
company/group now known as B&M. For some reason or another B&M couldn't provide
the physical coaster on time or on budget or something or other. Since Busch
had the design, they went to Arrow (who had given them Big Bad Wolf and Nessie)
to provide a coaster for that season.
Later on B&M pulled togeather (or Busch got more money or time or...) and they
provided Kumba (DF's supposed cousin) in Tampa from the same design as used for
Drachen Fire.
Now, as for me personally, I didn't see that much of a resembalance between the
two. I rode DF back around 1997 and didn't get down to Florida's B&M
extravaganza until this past summer (2001). So my view might be a bit skewed,
but so be it.
Cheers,
Nick
There is no spoon.
Locoboy
I agree with Keith.
Phillip Reuss
Douglas Kell
Douggie
"Rastus O'Ginga" <ras...@kingwoodcable.net> wrote in message
news:qp588u09jctjsf89k...@4ax.com...
Keith Hopkins
news:3C8439...@hotmail.com...
> Keith Hopkins wrote:
> > > There you have it. Satisfied?
> >
> > Yes. I'm satisfied that you've written an interesting story that few,
if
> > any, RRC readers could possibly corroborate. You have some interesting
> > points, but the whole "anonymous industry insider" aspect of your
message
> > renders your statements questionable. The insulting tone of your
writing
> > doesn't help your case either.
> >
> > --
> > Keith Hopkins
> > suss...@blockvisi.com (clear the block to reply)
> > "U2 is what happens when a punk rock band overstays its welcome."
>
> I agree with Keith.
With my statements, or with my .sig? :-)
Keith Hopkins
news:EOXg8.139099$s43.32...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> "Locoboy" <NOSPAMlo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree with Keith.
>
> Keith Johnson is right!
> Phillip Johnson
Stop that! :-)
--
Gabby Johnson
C. Montgomery Burns
> <dougla...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >if I read this right, and I am an english rollercoaster fan who has never
> >ridden DF why was it built by Arrow but Kumba built by B&M?
> >Douggie
>
> B&M couldn't build them both in the time frame necessary. This part
> of the story is most definitely true and well known.
>
> DF is Arrow's version of Kumba.
>
>
that I have always heard (not some bank loan problem). But I must
emphasize DF is Arrow's VERSION (or interpretation) of Kumba--DF
obviously wasn't designed by B&M, as the original poster claims.
C. Montgomery Burns
Sam Marks
>> of the story is most definitely true and well known.
>>
>> DF is Arrow's version of Kumba.
>>
>>
>Occasionally even I have to agree with Rastus, and this is the story
>that I have always heard (not some bank loan problem). But I must
>emphasize DF is Arrow's VERSION (or interpretation) of Kumba--DF
>obviously wasn't designed by B&M, as the original poster claims.
>
>C. Montgomery Burns
>
would have it opening well after the park opened for the year, Arrow was
contacted, and asked if they could produce a coaster with similar elements, and
have it open on BGWs opening day.......
SAM
Dave Althoff Jr
: Some of you are such children. You think that because you ride
: rollercoasters and go to parks you understand the incredibly complex
: industry that surrounds them. There is so much meaningful content on this
: group, so much interesting analysis, but it's so watered down by silliness
: and misunderstanding. Without revealing anything conclusive about who I am,
: there is one bit of information which I finally feel I can release without
: threatening myself too severely, and maybe it'll shut some of your yappers.
Cool! A blind appeal to authority. "Trust me, even though you have no
idea who I am or what I know." Are you the Dippin' Dots guy?
: Rewind. The year is 1989, June. Anheuser-Busch's theme park division enters
: negotiation with a spinoff group of Intamin AG regarding the potential for a
: number of new attractions down the line. The dollar values discussed are
: astronomical, but the firm is suggesting it can do things that have never
: been done before with regard to capacity, to reliability, and to rider
: experience. The five or six executives privy to the demonstration are
: understandably phenomenally impressed. Having sat through a ridiculous
: number of presentations from contractors ranging from Arrow Dynamics, at the
: time the park's tried and true supplier, to a few anonymous Japanese firms,
: the decision is quickly made to pursue the relationship.
So far it's an interesting story.
: The firm becomes B&M shortly thereafter and makes a splash with their first
: ride. Meanwhile, a few more meetings into negotiations a portfolio of ride
: layouts is revealed at a meeting as part of a joint package plan - under the
: name of a single contract to B&M, Busch is to build two rides. The price tag
: covers the design phase, which has been fully completed as of Jan 1 1990,
: and the construction and servicing of the rides.
I find this to be suspicious. It would make the most sense to build rides
separately for administrative purposes.
: Fast foreward two weeks: Busch publishes first quarter earnings reports and
: all of a sudden one of their support bank ducks out of a loan agreement
: about to be signed. The company scrambles unsuccesfully to find another
: lender and reports to B&M that the earlier of the two coaster projects is
: simply going to have to be scrapped.
Never mind that A-B could build the ride for cash. Financing is secured
for accounting reasons, and for the piddling amounts required to build
amusement rides (where large corporations are concerned), banking is
hardly a requirement.
: However, the down payment has already
: been made so Busch secures the rights to produce a ride of the given layout,
: figuring on recontracting the firm down the line when funding is easier to
: come by. However, a surprise visit is made to the offices by a number of
: engineers and executives from Arrow who had been following the production
: calendar for the big deal.
Corporate spies? Frozen out of the big deal, these guys wouldn't be privy
to it!
: Seeing it fall through, they drop an attractive
: proposal: they think they can build a ride of similar magnitude for a much
: smaller price tag and they can have it done in time for the same release
: date. Intrigued, and running short on time, Busch hands over the plans to
: Arrow for a full estimate. After a scant 2 weeks, Arrow replies that after a
: few minor modifications, their equipment should be sound to produce the
: ride. The deal is signed, the ride is built in record time, it opens and
: runs well enough. Anheuser Busch is thrilled with the arrangement, launches
: into an incredible marketing campaign of the new ride, and follows through
: on their deal to build Kumba next door.
Oh. It's the old "B&M designed Drachen Fire" story. I've heard this one
before, and I thought it had been thorougly debunked by representatives of
all three companies.
: What was lacking from the Arrow contract was a service agreement. Busch
: already has an in house service contractor at the time accustomed to dealing
: with Arrow track and technology, and they pay a deposit to that firm to
: service the new attraction. For a while this works impeccably - the ride
: works on understood and proven technologies, and maintenance is fine.
: Ridership is a little low, maybe, but the marketing department predicts that
: the ride is still drawing guests, they just aren't riding it. The park
: resolves to make some improvements to the area.
Here, things continue to sound fishy, as Arrow was appearing as its own
contractor. The talent comes from Arrow, the parts come from Arrow or
from Arrow's subcontractors. I don't know where this service contractor
idea came from...remember, it's parts and service that have kept Arrow in
business for the past dozen years or so.
: 1995 the first signs of problems show. Here's where things get interesting.
: The service contractor who has been servicing the ride goes under after
: major litigation regarding illegal operations for an unrelated field. Busch
: hires the contractor Arrow was originally offering to do a rapid inspection
: of Drachen Fire. The ride is reported to be in *almost* perfect condition
: but a few of the structural rivets on a new section of track inserted after
: a 1994 renovation are suffering stress damage. The modification, the removal
: of the final corkscrew, was engineered by Arrow per the parks request as
: part of the improvement package, but was installed by the defunct service
: contractor. The park replaces the rivets and continues operating the ride,
: making only a minor technical report to the shareholders. The new service
: contractor regularly inspects the ride and keeps it largely operational
: although some additional minor structural changes are made after the
: contractor recalculates stress loads on the steel used to support some
: portions of the ride.
The crap detector is going into overload, and a large portion of the
problem has to do with the fact that Drachen Fire is a welded steel
coaster. Given its age, it is likely that track spines are bolted
together, but for the most part, everything is welded. If you are looking
for structural rivets in an amusement park, you'd best confine yourself to
the Scrambler.
: 1996 things get really ugly. The winter didn't treat the new section of
: track well. There's a major stress fracture across a structural beam, and it
: has to be replaced. It turns out the old contractor was using shoddy steel
: to replace parts of the train and structure, and it's been deteriorating.
: The ride is considered safe to operate on a two year lisence, but a
: replacement package is deemed necessary to keep the ride operating
: inevitably. One of the trains is completely overhauled.
Here the narrative gets really weird. Most reputable operations (hell,
most of the unsavory ones, too) perform a complete overhaul on every
coaster train every single operating season. Likewise, the entire track
and structure of any coaster undergoes a thorough inspection at least once
per season, and frequently more than once: Once when the park does its
annual rehab, once when the insurance inspector comes through, and once
when an inspector comes through from a Controlling Legal Authority. I
happen to know a couple of the guys who do inspections for Busch. We
don't talk shop about specific clients, but I'm pretty sure they're not
going to give any kind of a multi-year certification to any ride for any
reason. State of Virginia might be another story, but even so...
: 1997 the ride has lots of downtime. The park is unable to replace the
: brittle parts in the winter because the stress of construction in the cold
: are deemed unsafe, so the park is scrambling to replace the parts in the
: warmer summer months by rotating operations. At season close, much work
: remains to be done, and the park is in the midst of paying off a very large
: contract (made unsurprisingly to B&M) regarding Alpengeist. Further
: negotiations are in place for Apollo's Chariot.
What kind of incompetent personnel are unable to do a little bit of heavy
ironwork in a fairly mild Mid-Atlantic winter? If it's possible to build
a coaster in the off-season, it is possible to maintain the same coaster
in the off-season.
: 1998 The coaster's last season. A meeting is held to determine the total
: cost for the renovations. The number is going to be much higher than
: originally thought - a large portion of the track, improperly supported, has
: bent and will need replacement to get the reliscensing. The park puts the
: project on hold, deciding to leave the ride shut down for the 99' season.
: And there you have it. In 2000 the ride was formally scrapped from the rehab
: list, and Busch published a report on the defects and offered to sell the
: "well designed ride" for a steal. No one wanted it, although several
: inquiries were made, because the cost of repairs would be so great.
: Last year, a contract was signed with a demolitions group to remove the
: ride.
: There you have it. Satisfied?
No, because it's a story that appears perfectly logical given the observed
facts, but that doesn't hold up under even mild scrutiny. I'll bet that
with just a little bit of research I could tear it down even further, but
I don't think it's worth the effort. So not worth the effort that it has
taken some days for me to bother with this response!
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
Joining the fun a little late. But as soon as I read about the
structural rivets I knew this poster was typing through his hat...
--
/-\ _ _ *** Closed for the season. ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /X\__ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ _/XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX
Locoboy
>
> With my statements, or with my .sig? :-)
Hehe...both actually, but in my first reply I was talking about your
statements about the "PR person" being very ride and obnoxious.
Matt
saying the same line in 99, or at least something along those lines. See
what happens when they learn how to use a computer, stick to the cart.
As for repairs in the winter, damn, if they can construct Millennium Force
"and all other Cedar Point Coaster's, and other parks too of course" during
the winter months, and test in early still cold spring, then well damn
Williamsburg must be hidden in a cold pocket way beyond that of the great
lakes region.
Oh and didn't everyone know Arrow rivets all their coaster's? Cost cutting,
why pay the welder's, and use fastener's. Oh and if you believe what I just
stated turn, face a walk and repeatedly smash your head into to knock
commonsense.
Cheers!
Matt
"Still saying damn some people have to much time on there hands."
"Dave Althoff Jr" <dal...@gcfn.org> wrote in message
news:a63ouc$jh1$1...@acme.gcfn.org...
Keith Hopkins
I realized that. I was just being a snot. :-)
It's been interesting seeing some of the trolling tactics on this newsgroup.
It's very revealing seeing the difference between the reasonably intelligent
storytellers and the name-calling adolescents. Reminds me of when I was a
snot-nosed junior-high student, and got on a CB and started swearing over
the airwaves until an anonymous adult told me to "knock it off".
I suppose that trolls are just another form of the same thing; people
testing the limits of society and their own power. Not to say that we
shouldn't tell 'em to knock it off.
--
Keith Hopkins
suss...@blockvisi.com (clear the block to reply)
"Your major in college may end up being
nothing more than good party conversation."
Robert Reagan
>rollercoasters and go to parks you understand the incredibly complex
>industry that surrounds them.
That issue is hard to disagree with.
>Without revealing anything conclusive about who I am,
>there is one bit of information which I finally feel I can release without
>threatening myself too severely, and maybe it'll shut some of your yappers.
Don't you mean without revealing anything believeable about you?
>Rewind. The year is 1989, June. Anheuser-Busch's theme park division enters
>negotiation with a spinoff group of Intamin AG regarding the potential for a
>number of new attractions down the line.
>The firm becomes B&M shortly thereafter and makes a splash with their first
>ride.
Your credibility just plummeted. B&M never were part of Intamin. They worked
for Giovanola, before going solo.
>1996 things get really ugly. The winter didn't treat the new section of
>track well. There's a major stress fracture across a structural beam, and it
>has to be replaced. It turns out the old contractor was using shoddy steel
>to replace parts of the train and structure, and it's been deteriorating.
>The ride is considered safe to operate on a two year lisence, but a
>replacement package is deemed necessary to keep the ride operating
>inevitably.
Your credibility just hit bottom. No corporate park would run
a ride with identified substandard steel. Especially for a two year
time period after a stress fracture was
found.
>There you have it. Satisfied?
What? That you are not an insider?
Robert Reagan
Coaster lover since July 1980
ACE Member since September 1980
ECC Member since February 2000
B&M ruLE
around and improvised as well.
I'm satisfied that I read this post and didn't waste too much energy & time
rebutting your improvising.
--
B&M are masters of the coaster game.
Customer request translate to custom forces even though we may not like it!
B&M has and can design powerful designs too bad the parks want a tamed down
version!!!!
"the messanger" <yoss...@catch22.net> wrote in message
news:sgAg8.12470$va....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> Some of you are such children. You think that because you ride
> rollercoasters and go to parks you understand the incredibly complex
> industry that surrounds them. There is so much meaningful content on this
> group, so much interesting analysis, but it's so watered down by silliness
> and misunderstanding. Without revealing anything conclusive about who I
am,
> there is one bit of information which I finally feel I can release without
> threatening myself too severely, and maybe it'll shut some of your
yappers.
>
>
> Rewind. The year is 1989, June. Anheuser-Busch's theme park division
enters
> negotiation with a spinoff group of Intamin AG regarding the potential for
a
> number of new attractions down the line. The dollar values discussed are
> astronomical, but the firm is suggesting it can do things that have never
> been done before with regard to capacity, to reliability, and to rider
> experience. The five or six executives privy to the demonstration are
> understandably phenomenally impressed. Having sat through a ridiculous
> number of presentations from contractors ranging from Arrow Dynamics, at
the
> time the park's tried and true supplier, to a few anonymous Japanese
firms,
> the decision is quickly made to pursue the relationship.
> The firm becomes B&M shortly thereafter and makes a splash with their
first
> ride. Meanwhile, a few more meetings into negotiations a portfolio of ride
> layouts is revealed at a meeting as part of a joint package plan - under
the
> name of a single contract to B&M, Busch is to build two rides. The price
tag
> covers the design phase, which has been fully completed as of Jan 1 1990,
> and the construction and servicing of the rides.
> Fast foreward two weeks: Busch publishes first quarter earnings reports
and
> all of a sudden one of their support bank ducks out of a loan agreement
> about to be signed. The company scrambles unsuccesfully to find another
> lender and reports to B&M that the earlier of the two coaster projects is
> simply going to have to be scrapped. However, the down payment has already
> been made so Busch secures the rights to produce a ride of the given
layout,
> figuring on recontracting the firm down the line when funding is easier to
> come by. However, a surprise visit is made to the offices by a number of
> engineers and executives from Arrow who had been following the production
> calendar for the big deal. Seeing it fall through, they drop an attractive
> proposal: they think they can build a ride of similar magnitude for a much
> smaller price tag and they can have it done in time for the same release
> date. Intrigued, and running short on time, Busch hands over the plans to
> Arrow for a full estimate. After a scant 2 weeks, Arrow replies that after
a
> few minor modifications, their equipment should be sound to produce the
> ride. The deal is signed, the ride is built in record time, it opens and
> runs well enough. Anheuser Busch is thrilled with the arrangement,
launches
> into an incredible marketing campaign of the new ride, and follows through
> on their deal to build Kumba next door.
> What was lacking from the Arrow contract was a service agreement. Busch
> already has an in house service contractor at the time accustomed to
dealing
> with Arrow track and technology, and they pay a deposit to that firm to
> service the new attraction. For a while this works impeccably - the ride
> works on understood and proven technologies, and maintenance is fine.
> Ridership is a little low, maybe, but the marketing department predicts
that
> the ride is still drawing guests, they just aren't riding it. The park
> resolves to make some improvements to the area.
> 1995 the first signs of problems show. Here's where things get
interesting.
> The service contractor who has been servicing the ride goes under after
> major litigation regarding illegal operations for an unrelated field.
Busch
> hires the contractor Arrow was originally offering to do a rapid
inspection
> of Drachen Fire. The ride is reported to be in *almost* perfect condition
> but a few of the structural rivets on a new section of track inserted
after
> a 1994 renovation are suffering stress damage. The modification, the
removal
> of the final corkscrew, was engineered by Arrow per the parks request as
> part of the improvement package, but was installed by the defunct service
> contractor. The park replaces the rivets and continues operating the ride,
> making only a minor technical report to the shareholders. The new service
> contractor regularly inspects the ride and keeps it largely operational
> although some additional minor structural changes are made after the
> contractor recalculates stress loads on the steel used to support some
> portions of the ride.
> 1996 things get really ugly. The winter didn't treat the new section of
> track well. There's a major stress fracture across a structural beam, and
it
> has to be replaced. It turns out the old contractor was using shoddy steel
> to replace parts of the train and structure, and it's been deteriorating.
> The ride is considered safe to operate on a two year lisence, but a
> replacement package is deemed necessary to keep the ride operating
> inevitably. One of the trains is completely overhauled.
> 1997 the ride has lots of downtime. The park is unable to replace the
> brittle parts in the winter because the stress of construction in the cold
> are deemed unsafe, so the park is scrambling to replace the parts in the
> warmer summer months by rotating operations. At season close, much work
> remains to be done, and the park is in the midst of paying off a very
large
> contract (made unsurprisingly to B&M) regarding Alpengeist. Further
> negotiations are in place for Apollo's Chariot.
> 1998 The coaster's last season. A meeting is held to determine the total
> cost for the renovations. The number is going to be much higher than
> originally thought - a large portion of the track, improperly supported,
has
> bent and will need replacement to get the reliscensing. The park puts the
> project on hold, deciding to leave the ride shut down for the 99' season.
> And there you have it. In 2000 the ride was formally scrapped from the
rehab
> list, and Busch published a report on the defects and offered to sell the
> "well designed ride" for a steal. No one wanted it, although several
> inquiries were made, because the cost of repairs would be so great.
> Last year, a contract was signed with a demolitions group to remove the
> ride.
Rastus O'Ginga
>
>>The firm becomes B&M shortly thereafter and makes a splash with their first
>>ride.
>
>Your credibility just plummeted. B&M never were part of Intamin. They worked
>for Giovanola, before going solo.
>
Batman the Escape at SFAW is an Intamin, correct? I'm pretty sure
Walter and Claude had something to do with it.
>
>Your credibility just hit bottom. No corporate park would run
>a ride with identified substandard steel. Especially for a two year
>time period after a stress fracture was
>found.
I think you underestimate the power of the dollar, and overestimate
the integrity of corporate America. Have you been to Disneyland
lately?
>
>>There you have it. Satisfied?
>
>What? That you are not an insider?
>
>
>Robert Reagan
>Coaster lover since July 1980
>ACE Member since September 1980
>ECC Member since February 2000
C. Montgomery Burns
> On 06 Mar 2002 21:02:35 GMT, roll...@aol.com (Robert Reagan) wrote:
>
> >
> >>The firm becomes B&M shortly thereafter and makes a splash with their first
> >>ride.
> >
> >Your credibility just plummeted. B&M never were part of Intamin. They worked
> >for Giovanola, before going solo.
> >
>
> Batman the Escape at SFAW is an Intamin, correct? I'm pretty sure
> Walter and Claude had something to do with it.
>
Intamin contracted Giovanola to build a number of their rides, like
the Intamin Freefalls for example. Giovanola probably built the first
two Intamin Standups while B&M were working for them. The resemblence
between an Intamin (Gio) standup and B&M standup is fairly obvious.
C. Montgomery Burns
Pete Babic
@aol.com says...
> >The firm becomes B&M shortly thereafter and makes a splash with their first
> >ride.
>
> Your credibility just plummeted. B&M never were part of Intamin. They worked
> for Giovanola, before going solo.
But didn't Intamin sell Giovanola before Giovanola marketed products
themselves? If I remember, I think all the Intamin first gen. Freefalls
(Demon Drop) are actually Giovanola.
--
Pete Babic
CWRU
B&M ruLE
and firms. The first generation freefalls (still my favorite drop rides)
were Giovanola with Intamin's name stamped on them. Anyway other than
Stengl (sp?), IMO more than 3/4 of there branded attractions are not even
there designs.
--
B&M are masters of the coaster game.
Customer request translate to custom forces even though we may not like it!
B&M has and can design powerful designs too bad the parks want a tamed down
version!!!!
"Pete Babic" <p...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.16f28dad9...@news.cwru.edu...
Robert Reagan
>>for Giovanola, before going solo.
>>
>
>Batman the Escape at SFAW is an Intamin, correct? I'm pretty sure
>Walter and Claude had something to do with it.
>
They did indeed work on it. The Intamin coasters, at least till the
recent ones like Volcano and the Supermen, were Giovanola
rides sold by Intamin. Its hard to picture, but the B&M guys are
at least partially responsible for the SFMM Flashback. They got
better. :-)
Keith M Porter
-Keith Porter
SixFlag...@comcast.net
Colt5533
different. Admittedly, it's less like a coster than an exotic, hybrid flat
ride, but I thought that it showed ingenuity and innovation- Colt.