RMC. Is it more expensive to convert or build from scratch?

[Chris Brown]

I know at face value this seems like a pretty obvious answer. Conversions are probably cheaper as some of the structure is recycled and already constructed. However is this actually true? A few points to consider that perhaps prove otherwise.

- The layout is restricted therefore greater consideration will be required in the design of the conversion. I would assume it would take RMC longer to design a ride based on existing track and supports than it would to come up with something from scratch.

- The existing structure would need to be heavily surveyed to ensure structural integrity shall remain with the new track in place. The old structure will have to be significantly re-supported and improved as it will not have been designed with the structural load of the new track.

- The 3D modelling of the ride to calculate stats will require all of the old support structure to be modeled with estimated structural integrity of each support section. This will take longer than building a model with new materials and standard data.

- Not much of the actual structure is actually used to how much building material is actually saved?

- All of the rides hardware is re done, the trains are replaced, all the track is replaced so effectively the only things that dont need doing are initial groundwork and small parts of the support construction. How much difference is there between this and a new ride?

- The fact that you have to deal with someone elses work to do your own work properly. Working as an Engineering consultant I know that its a nightmare doing refurbishment projects as its just so much easier to start over so you trust the full design, not just the bit you have worked on. Not sure if Alan Schilke has the same train of thought as me though...

Obviously I understand why a park would choose a conversion over a new ride in certain instances. Rides age and maintenance costs rise but along come RMC who improve an existing ride by making a new ride without using any land whilst retiring an old burdenous ride. Everyone's happy. The parks will have less of an issue obtaining planning on converting an old ride than building a new one. Does this give enough justification for a park to pay more to convert an old ride than to build a new one altogether?

 

[Gazza]

Re: RMC. Is it more expensive to convert or build from scrat

I'm inclined to say conversions would be cheaper, because you save a lot on foundations, which tend to be a huge component of any ride install, often up to 50% of the budget.

 

[Pokemaniac]

Re: RMC. Is it more expensive to convert or build from scrat

Agree with Gazza here. RMC rarely if ever touch the ground the rides are built on, and that's where the big money drains are. Any sort of land clearance makes a budget bleed, and pouring foundations is a proper pain in the rear. Staying above ground on a readily made support structure saves a lot of money. By building a new ride in the same spot, you'd have to dig the old foundations out of the ground and then bring in the new one, meaning that a complete demolition/rebuilding process from scratch tends to be twice as expensive in the ground work department.

I'm less savvy with the legal stuff, but I believe it's not necessary with as much paper work to get a ride repurposing approved with the local government either. I mean, the coaster is already standing there, and unless its height or silhouette is changed dramatically, repurposing it shouldn't interfere at all with the permits the park already got when building it. Getting such approvals might not be expensive, but saving the hassle also saves a lot of time.

That being said, repurposing probably isn't dramatically cheaper than rebuilding either, for the reasons stated above. A huge sum is saved on ground work, but money is spent elsewhere.

 

[andrus]

Re: RMC. Is it more expensive to convert or build from scrat

Yes, I think we're all consentient on this one. A woodie with the iron horse treatment would have the cost of -50% (due to savings in ground works) + additional surveying and strengthening of the existing wood structure. Don't know how much the park will save in the end, but I bet it's a good deal!

 

[Chris Brown]

Re: RMC. Is it more expensive to convert or build from scrat

I'm not entirely convinced that ground work is that expensive. Let's take a look a New Texas Giant, it cost £10 million to convert to ibox. Outlaw run cost £12 million from new. New Texas giant was RMC's first proper coaster project so it may have been done at a discounted rate as it was a gamble for six flags. Although outlaw run was a prototype it was after the success of NTG and I can't see outlaw run being done at a huge discount after this. Outlaw run is built on a pretty challenging terrain and would require a significant amount of ground work yet the £2 million price difference doesn't come very close to this 50% figure for ground work?

Ok so I've just counter argued myself but hey ho.

 

[andrus]

Re: RMC. Is it more expensive to convert or build from scrat

^I know from talking to Liseberg officials during the Helix openingt hat the huge cost of the ride was due to the groundwork being more expensive than usual. They said ~50% of the money spent on a coaster project normally covers the ground clearing and pouring of footers, while the remaining ~50% covers the steel hardware. In the case of Helix groundworks was well beyond 50% though, making the ride more expensive than normal (24 million euros I think). Groundworks is a lot more expensive than one would think.

Regarding the discounts: I don't know of a particular discount of NTG but one could assume Six Flags got it somewhat cheaper due to being a prototype, even more so since RMC had a deal with Six Flags for annual iron horse treatments thereafter. I do however know for sure that Silver Dollar City got a discount on Outlaw Run for being a prototype. It's also a big factor that NTG have quite a bit longer layout than Outlaw, probably adding up to the price. I think the £10 and £12 million pricetags seems reasonable.