CWOA | Mandrill Mayhem (World of Jumanji) | B&M Wing Coaster | 2023

[Lukas D]

Then again, if there's no switch track, how are train(s) supposed to get to the maintenance depot?

 

[Pokemaniac]

Then again, if there's no switch track, how are train(s) supposed to get to the maintenance depot?

Let's put the question differently: with only one train, the ride would be out of operation whenever the train needs maintenance. If so, why bother with a separate maintenance depot? Might as well just use the ride station.

 

[Jared]

The tricky here is that the station clearly has footers for the track, but it’s a different set up to the normal Wing Coasters.

B&M Wing Coasters station tracks are usually built to the floor of the station, this one isn’t. There’s a pit beneath. I always figured it was for simple repairs like wheels etc, but with no switch track etc. it’s hard to say.

This whole B&M have solved the capacity problem is a real head scratcher.

 

[spicy]

The tricky here is that the station clearly has footers for the track, but it’s a different set up to the normal Wing Coasters.

B&M Wing Coasters station tracks are usually built to the floor of the station, this one isn’t. There’s a pit beneath. I always figured it was for simple repairs like wheels etc, but with no switch track etc. it’s hard to say.

This whole B&M have solved the capacity problem is a real head scratcher.

I would have thought that would be due to this being a shuttle coaster.
The track in the station will be under extra stress than a normal wing coaster, therefore stronger supports are needed with footers etc.

 

[Howie]

Double decker train?

 

[JoshC.]

B&M Wing Coasters station tracks are usually built to the floor of the station, this one isn’t. There’s a pit beneath. I always figured it was for simple repairs like wheels etc, but with no switch track etc. it’s hard to say.

Presumably as well there needs to be additional clearance between riders and the floor, so there could well be a need for the floor to lower for the train to pass through.

 

[emoo]

How about robot arms to detach each wing with riders in their own module coming off and then attach the oncoming riders already seated and secured in another module. If timed correctly the train wouldn't even need to stop That should help capacity albeit not matching the theme and a bit too Futurama.


Or, more simply remove the need of a seatbelt?

 

[Fleetwood_Mack]

You're all missing the obvious here. They're clearly planning on making each guest roll a set of dice at some point during the queue and rigging it. Don't have to worry about capacity when half your guests are trapped in a jungle somewhere! (sorry for the dated reference but I haven't seen the new Jumanji films - can't stand most of the people in them)

 

[Jared]

Presumably as well there needs to be additional clearance between riders and the floor, so there could well be a need for the floor to lower for the train to pass through.

See, I thought that too, but I can’t imagine that would be too much of an issue as peoples legs don’t actually get close enough to the floor when sitting in the train. It’s basically the same as Swarm I’d imagine where guests climb into the train. The higher seating position negates the need for a moving floor there. Although this is likely to be travelling faster through the station.

I can’t imagine B&M would want to over complicate it with moving floors etc. They went to the effort of redesigning the trains on the new dive coaster in Texas to remove the need for the folding floor.

 

[Matt N]

If there was to be a new loading solution that accommodates 2 trains, I wondered if the space below the station could be for some sort of stacked station affair. Think something a bit like the Big One’s vertical transfer track, but with station platforms on the top and bottom levels.

Here’s a video of the Big One’s transfer track, to show you what I mean:

Hopefully this system would go a bit faster than that, but the basic principle would be the same. My thought was:

• The station building could be on 3 levels.
• On the ground floor, you could have Station 1.
• On the middle floor, you’d have the launch track.
• On the top floor, you could have Station 2.

In terms of how this would work in practice:

• Train 2 would load and unload in Station 2 while Train 1 negotiates the circuit. Retractable floors would be raised to allow for riders and operators to get to and from the train safely.
• When Train 2 is ready to dispatch and Train 1 has completed the circuit, the retractable floors would lower and Train 2 would lower onto the launch track.
• As Train 2 is lowered onto the circuit, Train 1 would be lowered into Station 1 on the ground floor to load and unload as Train 2 negotiates the circuit.
• Repeat process, while alternating between Train 2 and Train 1, many times.

That’s my idea, anyway. I’m not sure how feasible it would be, but I think it would be a possible way to get around the pitfalls of wing coaster seating for the regular solutions like turntables and sliding station tracks. It also wouldn’t require any additional ground space compared to a regular station.

In terms of how you’d get people up to the top station; my thought was that it could operate a bit like a flying theatre does, where guests are split into different groups to go to different levels. 2 groups (Station 1 right & left) could stay on the ground, while other groups (Station 2 right & left) could go upstairs.

 

[CrashCoaster]

If there was to be a new loading solution that accommodates 2 trains, I wondered if the space below the station could be for some sort of stacked station affair. Think something a bit like the Big One’s vertical transfer track, but with station platforms on the top and bottom levels.

Here’s a video of the Big One’s transfer track, to show you what I mean:

Hopefully this system would go a bit faster than that, but the basic principle would be the same. My thought was:

• The station building could be on 3 levels.
• On the ground floor, you could have Station 1.
• On the middle floor, you’d have the launch track.
• On the top floor, you could have Station 2.

In terms of how this would work in practice:

• Train 2 would load and unload in Station 2 while Train 1 negotiates the circuit. Retractable floors would be raised to allow for riders and operators to get to and from the train safely.
• When Train 2 is ready to dispatch and Train 1 has completed the circuit, the retractable floors would lower and Train 2 would lower onto the launch track.
• As Train 2 is lowered onto the circuit, Train 1 would be lowered into Station 1 on the ground floor to load and unload as Train 2 negotiates the circuit.
• Repeat process, while alternating between Train 2 and Train 1, many times.

That’s my idea, anyway. I’m not sure how feasible it would be, but I think it would be a possible way to get around the pitfalls of wing coaster seating for the regular solutions like turntables and sliding station tracks. It also wouldn’t require any additional ground space compared to a regular station.

In terms of how you’d get people up to the top station; my thought was that it could operate a bit like a flying theatre does, where guests are split into different groups to go to different levels. 2 groups (Station 1 right & left) could stay on the ground, while other groups (Station 2 right & left) could go upstairs.

I thought about that too but the station doesn't look anywhere near tall enough to be able to do that - look how tall Big One's station is for comparison, as that sort of height is needed to fit 3 levels of track with the ability for them to move.

 

[Matt N]

I thought about that too but the station doesn't look anywhere near tall enough to be able to do that - look how tall Big One's station is for comparison, as that sort of height is needed to fit 3 levels of track with the ability for them to move.

I apologise if I’ve missed something here, but do we actually know how tall the station building is? I don’t remember seeing a height figure for it or any confirmation of its height being too short to accommodate another level of track, but I could be wrong there.

For clarity, I’m not saying that this ride will run 2 trains. I could be adding 2 and 2 and getting 121 here. But there is evidence suggesting that it might run 2 trains.

The ride has a maintenance shed, which is not normally something that’s present on coasters that only run 1 train. Surely you could just use the ride station to do maintenance on the train in this scenario, as the ride wouldn’t be operating if its only train was down for maintenance?

Wardley also made rather intriguing comments about B&M having “solved the shuttle coaster capacity problem” for this ride. Given that the 720pph capacity with a 24-rider train being thrown around for the ride on 1 train would be a lower theoretical than that of the common-as-anything Vekoma Boomerang (760pph with a 28-rider train), I find this comment rather baffling if the ride will only run one train.

 

[CrashCoaster]

I apologise if I’ve missed something here, but do we actually know how tall the station building is? I don’t remember seeing a height figure for it or any confirmation of its height being too short to accommodate another level of track, but I could be wrong there.

I mean you can clearly see using your eyeballs that it's not as tall as Big One's station...

 

[JMW]

I apologise if I’ve missed something here, but do we actually know how tall the station building is? I don’t remember seeing a height figure for it or any confirmation of its height being too short to accommodate another level of track, but I could be wrong there.

For clarity, I’m not saying that this ride will run 2 trains. I could be adding 2 and 2 and getting 121 here. But there is evidence suggesting that it might run 2 trains.

The ride has a maintenance shed, which is not normally something that’s present on coasters that only run 1 train. Surely you could just use the ride station to do maintenance on the train in this scenario, as the ride wouldn’t be operating if its only train was down for maintenance?

Wardley also made rather intriguing comments about B&M having “solved the shuttle coaster capacity problem” for this ride. Given that the 720pph capacity with a 24-rider train being thrown around for the ride on 1 train would be a lower theoretical than that of the common-as-anything Vekoma Boomerang (760pph with a 28-rider train), I find this comment rather baffling if the ride will only run one train.

Good concept, but no the station is nowhere near tall enough.

 

[Hixee]

What if, crazy idea, it's just gonna have one train?

 

[Matt N]

Ah, sorry… that definitely isn’t tall enough to accommodate stacked stations…

In that case, Wardley’s comments, and the presence of a maintenance shed, are a real head scratcher…

What if, crazy idea, it's just gonna have one train?

It could well do. In fact, it probably will.

But as I said above, there is some evidence that it might have 2. The ride has a maintenance shed, which isn’t normally present on coasters with one train. John Wardley also claims that the ride has “solved the shuttle coaster capacity problem” even though the one train capacity being thrown around is lower than that of the regular Vekoma Boomerang. Wardley has not shied away from criticising low ride capacities in the past, so I found his comments in particular intriguing…

 

[JoshC.]

As much as John Wardley is a man with a wealth of experience and knowledge, his comments shouldn't be taken as gospel either. Ultimately he was speaking at an event and was, in some capacity, a representative of Merlin. He's not going to day anything bad about the company, and he's of course going to hype up future investments.

Ultimately, his comments have sparked a renewed enthusiast interest in the project, beyond what yesterday's announcement would have done. Such is the power of the man's word.

 

[Matt N]

As much as John Wardley is a man with a wealth of experience and knowledge, his comments shouldn't be taken as gospel either. Ultimately he was speaking at an event and was, in some capacity, a representative of Merlin. He's not going to day anything bad about the company, and he's of course going to hype up future investments.

Ultimately, his comments have sparked a renewed enthusiast interest in the project, beyond what yesterday's announcement would have done. Such is the power of the man's word.

I get what you’re saying, and that is probably true to an extent.

However, he hasn’t exactly minced his words on certain things in the past. He has been openly critical of the company’s USP based design ethos, and he also described parts of Wicker Man’s profiling as “absolutely atrocious” in a previous Q&A even though he was a consultant on the project, so I don’t think he’d necessarily hold back on capacity criticism if he felt that it was warranted.

 

[Changa]

Is there currently any reason why this would be a wing coaster instead of a traditional b&m with a Mr Freeze-esque transfer station? Other than the in-line twist, there isn't anything specifically characteristic of a wing coaster, and a transfer track at the station would easily resolve the capacity "solution" that has been devised.

 

[Efteldingus]

If I'm not mistaken the on site drawings showed the B&M "serial number" WI-S (or maybe WI-R, not sure), indicating that this is a Wing Coaster.