What's new

Gwazi Closing in 2015

HateToFly is one of the people in the know on Orlando United. He has a very good track record so I'd be inclined to trust what he has said
 
Hyde said:
I think an important thread of information throughout Gwazi closing is that it is being done for budgetary reasons - not ride experience. If we are to take what has been said on Screamscape/other news sites at face value, the decision to close Gwazi is one of financial concern, not rider comfort/improvement. It is very difficult to find logic in closing a roller coaster due to budgetary constraints, to then dump another $10 million into it for refurbishment.

If you look at $10m for a big, new, quality coaster over the $20m+ for a B&M it starts looking cheap though.

Which to me could be why they're closing it so early for a 2017 reopening.

Although I'm happy they're just getting rid of it, although I'm gutted I never got the side that closed. Oh well, at least I got one. Hi Gavin.
 
What I find really strange and I'm looking at this from a business view now.

Blackstone sold their share in Universal and the change since has been amazing, big investment better customer service.

Blackstone took over the Busch parks, they were known for big investment and good service now look what's happened.

Blackstone also own Merlin who are behind this I drive stuff and legoland.

Now it seems to be what's happened in the uk to a degree. Not much investment in the parks apart from Legoland and the money is spent on up charge things like the wheel sea life etc.

It's the other Busch park people are moaning about as well, the rides since the takeover have not been to the same standard as before.

They might get away with it in the uk, but I don't think they will in the usa.

Sea World needs huge investment and they really need to get on with the new whale enclosure. As people have said this will also help Busch.

Sorry but for a park like Busch not have the money to run a coaster is stupid and makes no sense.

People will not do the 2 hour drive from Orlando if there is nothing new to ride. Universal and ioa suffered for years with dropping attendance until they invested.
 
marc said:
Sorry but for a park like Busch not have the money to run a coaster is stupid and makes no sense.

True, but then why has the Lion side been closed for over two years?
 
The maintenance costs were pretty high and they also needed parts from the Lion side to keep the Tiger side running, from memory I think it was something to do with the lift mechanism.
 
^ That's also what I heard. The cost of maintaining both of the sides became too vast and therefore they closed one of the sides. It has absolutely nothing to do with demand or popularity.
 
Lofty said:
^ That's also what I heard. The cost of maintaining both of the sides became too vast and therefore they closed one of the sides. It has absolutely nothing to do with demand or popularity.
Put then if the ride was popular it would be making enough money on its own accord to cover those costs?
 
More like if the park was still popular it would be making enough money so they could run and maintain all their rides.

Also shows the drop tower did not draw in enough people.

It's all rather sad tbh.
 
Ben said:
Hyde said:
I think an important thread of information throughout Gwazi closing is that it is being done for budgetary reasons - not ride experience. If we are to take what has been said on Screamscape/other news sites at face value, the decision to close Gwazi is one of financial concern, not rider comfort/improvement. It is very difficult to find logic in closing a roller coaster due to budgetary constraints, to then dump another $10 million into it for refurbishment.

If you look at $10m for a big, new, quality coaster over the $20m+ for a B&M it starts looking cheap though.

Which to me could be why they're closing it so early for a 2017 reopening.

Although I'm happy they're just getting rid of it, although I'm gutted I never got the side that closed. Oh well, at least I got one. Hi Gavin.

I think I can cope with missing a universally hated woodie when I've got one of the world's best (your favourite, isn't it?) doable as a day trip. Xxx
 
Ben said:
Hyde said:
I think an important thread of information throughout Gwazi closing is that it is being done for budgetary reasons - not ride experience. If we are to take what has been said on Screamscape/other news sites at face value, the decision to close Gwazi is one of financial concern, not rider comfort/improvement. It is very difficult to find logic in closing a roller coaster due to budgetary constraints, to then dump another $10 million into it for refurbishment.

If you look at $10m for a big, new, quality coaster over the $20m+ for a B&M it starts looking cheap though.

Which to me could be why they're closing it so early for a 2017 reopening.

Although I'm happy they're just getting rid of it, although I'm gutted I never got the side that closed. Oh well, at least I got one. Hi Gavin.
It's also cheaper to torch the thing and spend less than $10m on the combined demolition of the existing ride and something smaller like a Chance Hyper GT-X. Lightning Run only cost $7m.

Compared to refurbishing a ride with a troubled past, it seems like the more cost effective and more marketable solution to go for an entirely new ride, in my opinion. That said, the budgetary constraints that Blackstone are under right now don't seem to lend themselves to another major investment like that for a while, especially with the amount of money they're pouring into the Blue World exhibits at the SeaWorld parks.
 
owenrita121 said:
Lofty said:
^ That's also what I heard. The cost of maintaining both of the sides became too vast and therefore they closed one of the sides. It has absolutely nothing to do with demand or popularity.
Put then if the ride was popular it would be making enough money on its own accord to cover those costs?
Due to the park not operating as a 'pay per ride' park, what you've proposed is completely invalid and shows your lack of understanding of park operations and funding.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Lofty said:
owenrita121 said:
Lofty said:
^ That's also what I heard. The cost of maintaining both of the sides became too vast and therefore they closed one of the sides. It has absolutely nothing to do with demand or popularity.
Put then if the ride was popular it would be making enough money on its own accord to cover those costs?
Due to the park not operating as a 'pay per ride' park, what you've proposed is completely invalid and shows your lack of understanding of park operations and funding.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
So what your saying is for example due to The Smiler not being a pay per ride it has not made the park any money?
I'm saying Gwazi doesn't attract people to the park anymore therefore it isn't making money.
 
"Making enough money on its own accord" implies that the ride itself is making money, as in a pay-per-ride park.
 
^ At least you understand me.

Owen you cannot compare a 90's wooden coaster to a brand new steel coaster that received unlimited amounts of PR and still does to this day. You implied that the coaster (Gwazi) wasn't earning enough money, which you can't justify at all when taking into account the payroll of the employees, other maintenance costs, food, everything that is spent running the park. It would he nigh on impossible to work out the singular cost that the coaster has in terms of popularity. Which also brings me back to your Smiler comment which is also unjust; people travel to Alton Towers for all of their rides and general attractions, not JUST The Smiler. To find out he difference it made (to a rough extent and you'd never have an actual figure unless you quizzed everybody entering the park) you'd have to look at the attendance increase from the year before and take away the average general growth to find out the percentage increase from designated PR etc. this is all so stupidly loose though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
The park should do the "Iron Horse / Hybrid" Treatment for this woodie as there is no point in razing it when u can spend a few million on creating a better coaster.
 
The decision of any park to close a ride can rarely be attributed to a single factor, but economic viability is usually one of the most important deciding factors.

Of course, rides can actually make hard cash for parks, in ORPs, merchandise and fastrack schemes, so there is a degree of 'making money on its own accord', but this is is relatively minor compared with the upfront costs of building and maintaining a ride.

'Popularity' is hard to gauge - queue times depend on the ride's throughput etc, but only in its first or second year will a single ride attract guests directly.
In truth, guests will (obviously) be attracted by the park experience as a whole, of which Gwazi forms a part of. Therefore, relative to the other rides in the park, the ride must still have an appeal.

-Yes, Gwazi is unique at BGT, but due its rough ride and visually poor maintenance, it's near the bottom of any park-goers to-do list.
-Its departure won't really leave a hole in the up, so it's a sacrifice they can afford.
-It's not quite old enough to start being nostalgic, like Scorpion.

Yes, if it's popular enough, a park will keep it going - but that doesn't keep it going by itself. It's the value of the ride to the park that'll prompt an extended stay.
 
I've never been to Tampa; but considering Gwai's bad(/rough) reputation, and all efforts that has been made (all the retracking, new trains etc) and with the (obviously) non-desired result, I definitely understand why the park would like to put an end to this ride. It's a shame though since there are so few wooden coasters in Florida. But it seems like the park have made everything in their power trying to save the ride. But, as with most old GCI's, it's a rough ride that just can not be saved (it seems)...

I would love to see an RMC makeover. This is probably the only way they could attract visitors once again! A major overhaul of the magnitude needed (since they've already had several major re-tracking attempts), would not justify the "only" smoother ride experience it'll give. Gwazi will still have a bad(/rough) reputation among the visitors. But to make it a hybrid, and feature a couple of inversions, the audience would clearly see the difference between the old and new ride, and the park could (just like SF) market it as such!

I'm not having any hopes though. with the very overfull schedule of RMC I don't see BGT getting a Gwazi hybrid-makeover soon. And I don't think the park plans to have the ride just standing there rotting in the meantime..
 
andrus said:
I'm not having any hopes though. with the very overfull schedule of RMC I don't see BGT getting a Gwazi hybrid-makeover soon. And I don't think the park plans to have the ride just standing there rotting in the meantime..

Actually everything i'm hearing is that they don't have money in the budget to demolish it...

it's just gonna rot SBNO for quite sometime. Which is an even bigger shame
 
Top