Something interesting to note, Lumber Jump is remaining on the park's ride list online while Timber Tug Boat has disappeared. Rocky Express is gone too.According to Jack Silkstone's latest closed season update from Thorpe Park, stuff is now happening in Old Town:
The things that have happened include:
Slammer is currently still intact, and Rocky Express' theming also remains intact at present, but the status of the hardware itself is unknown.
- Lumber Jump has disappeared, and Timber Tug Boat may possibly have gone as well.
- Fences have gone up and minor work is beginning around where Creek Freak Massacre was located.
- Deconstruction work on Platform 15 has commenced.
Thanks for that JoshAre changes a-coming?
A new document has appeared on a planning application related to Project Exodus, which shows a change in boundary...
And to show this more clearly, here's the size of area that's been added; the green line is roughly the old cut off point:
The area now includes the Platform 15 route up to the bridge (the old railway route for the older amongst us), as well as more parts over water, including the Loggers track over there.
The document uploaded suggest this is due to a "recent design development":
View attachment 16306
Now I don't think this necessarily means that the layout could change (which I'm sure plenty of people will jump to). However, it's certainly possible.
If we look at the original plan, the coaster doesn't hit all the way to the boundary, but does come close. And I believe the boundary plan is just where they will do any sort of work. So it could be just for access during construction, or to create an engineering route, for example.
We won't know exactly what this means until the full plans go in, but for now, there's a slither of evidence to suggest that changes to the layout are possible.
I just want some ejector hops at the end... Haha... I live for those, often my favourite element on coasters that have them (Goliath at WH, Zadra, Untamed, RTH for example.)I almost think the layout is completely fine as is. Perhaps the extension could be so the splashdown doesn't trim as hard resulting in the following outerbank, turnaround and airtime hill being pushed out?
Although that triangle thing going off to the right caused by the new extension says otherwise... I hope things don't change too much because the current element package, while not a large number of them, can still push the coaster to becoming world class.
Good idea actually, Wilde Maus XXL taught me well!! Although most people are now convinced there is no layout change at all now - perhaps maintenance roads, maintenance buildings or getting rid of a bit more Logger's.I just want some ejector hops at the end... Haha... I live for those, often my favourite element on coasters that have them (Goliath at WH, Zadra, Untamed for example.)
Like I said, not getting my hopes up either, but 'Due to recent design development' is certainly an interesting choice to open with.Good idea actually, Wilde Maus XXL taught me well!! Although most people are now convinced there is no layout change at all now - perhaps maintenance roads, maintenance buildings or getting rid of a bit more Logger's.
They haven’t submitted final plans yet… Have they?It could well be for a layout change; I do think it would be nice if they were able to add in a few straight airtime hills, as much as I think the layout is very impressive already given the site and Merlin’s tight budget! And Merlin may well have listened to some of the enthusiasts complaining about the length and lengthened it slightly!
However, there’s one thing that puts me off the prospect of a layout change, and that’s the wording and level of detail they’ve chosen to justify this change. If this was for a layout change, surely it would say something like “an alteration to the scope of the ride” that would have been spelled out to the planners in more depth (for instance, I imagine they’d have to outline any new footers being poured or whatever, as well as any new high points in that area), as opposed to “cut and edge landscaping”. That to me suggests some sort of more minor work away from the ride itself; I did notice that the new area encompasses the entirety of Loggers’ former plot whereas the old area didn’t, so perhaps the “design development” is that they’ve decided to demolish the remaining bits of Logger’s that weren’t covered in the initial scope? As has also been said, the original layout doesn’t quite fill the full outlined area, so surely a layout extension could in theory be done within the current boundary if they wanted one?
Don’t get me wrong, it could well be for a layout change (I don’t know much about how planning works for that type of thing), but something tells me that the planners wouldn’t be happy if Thorpe tried to pass off a layout extension as “landscaping”… I’d expect them to have to go into greater detail for something like that, or at very least specify “an extension to the scope of the ride”.
It’s worth remembering that the wooded section of The Flume was technically considered part of Wicker Man’s site during the planning process, but this was only due to the removal of the wooded section of The Flume; Wicker Man did not ultimately end up using the wooded area at all.
To be honest, I don’t think Exodus really needs a layout change, personally. Yes, it’s not the longest coaster, and it doesn’t look to be a straight airtime machine in the way that many were hoping for, but given the site, the budget and the brief, I think it’s already pretty impressive myself!
They haven’t, but I still feel like the planners and locals would want to know in more detail about any extension to the scope of the layout. And I feel like trying to pass one off as “landscaping” wouldn’t go down well.They haven’t submitted final plans yet… Have they?
They will ‘need’ to know, but not until plans are submitted. All that has happened so far is a public consultation. Any changes, that are of no additional consequence to the public in any way, will not need to be consulted on again.*They haven’t, but I still feel like the planners and locals would want to know in more detail about any extension to the scope of the layout. And I feel like trying to pass one off as “landscaping” wouldn’t go down well.
I could be wrong there, though…