Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Universal IoA | Jurassic World VelociCoaster | Intamin Blitz | 2021

oriolat2 said:
Taron has many blocks: station load, prelaunch, launch 1 and first half, launch 2 and second half, a couple of blocks on the brake run and station unload (so, 7 blocks).
Click to expand...
prelaunch is no Block; so 2 Station, 2 Launches and 2 breaks for a total of 6 Blocks.

Velocicoaster might make it to 7 blocks with a pre launch section, but in the end it is important how short the blocks are. Taron can handle 48 second dispatches for 1200ppl, I don’t think that universal will make it much higher (as you predicted).
 
S
Trax said:
prelaunch is no Block; so 2 Station, 2 Launches and 2 breaks for a total of 6 Blocks.

Velocicoaster might make it to 7 blocks with a pre launch section, but in the end it is important how short the blocks are. Taron can handle 48 second dispatches for 1200ppl, I don’t think that universal will make it much higher (as you predicted).
Click to expand...
So do the amount of blocks a ride has represent the amount of trains it can hold?
 
Markus.Downhill said:
S

So do the amount of blocks a ride has represent the amount of trains it can hold?
Click to expand...

Yes. Simply put, a block is there to "block" a train moving to the next section of a ride if the previous train hasn't gone past the next block.

The maximum number of trains most coasters can usually run is the number of blocks the ride has, minus 1. For example, your standard sit down roller coaster with a lift hill and no mid course break run has 3 blocks: station, lift hill and brakes at the end.

Obviously there's a limit to this. Some rides can run this number of trains in theory, but never would in practice because of loading / dispatch times, which would end up causing trains to stack.
 
JoshC. said:
Yes. Simply put, a block is there to "block" a train moving to the next section of a ride if the previous train hasn't gone past the next block.

The maximum number of trains most coasters can usually run is the number of blocks the ride has, minus 1. For example, your standard sit down roller coaster with a lift hill and no mid course break run has 3 blocks: station, lift hill and brakes at the end.

Obviously there's a limit to this. Some rides can run this number of trains in theory, but never would in practice because of loading / dispatch times, which would end up causing trains to stack.
Click to expand...
I don’t get why a lot of coasters run one train when they can run 2 trains. They would run two sometimes but what’s the harm in running 2 trains all the time even when it’s quiet?
 
Markus.Downhill said:
I don’t get why a lot of coasters run one train when they can run 2 trains. They would run two sometimes but what’s the harm in running 2 trains all the time even when it’s quiet?
Click to expand...
The main argument is that you're needlessly putting additional wear and tear on both trains to run them half empty. Makes more sense to use one train.
 
Markus.Downhill said:
I don’t get why a lot of coasters run one train when they can run 2 trains. They would run two sometimes but what’s the harm in running 2 trains all the time even when it’s quiet?
Click to expand...

Costs I would imagine. For example every set of wheels on each train will have a number of cycles before they have to be replaced. Why waste those cycles when you don't need to.

And as I was writing this @Hixee answered so I'll stop :p
 
Hixee said:
The main argument is that you're needlessly putting additional wear and tear on both trains to run them half empty. Makes more sense to use one train.
Click to expand...
Most of the time 1 train is run there is enough people for 2 trains to run and the trains still wouldn’t be empty
 
Markus.Downhill said:
Most of the time 1 train is run there is enough people for 2 trains to run and the trains still wouldn’t be empty
Click to expand...

If they put the second on, the queue would be cleared, and then they're back to needing to take the train off to save costs. Which also costs, because lots of companies need a tech to move trains, when they could be doing something more important!

A certain amout of queue is a good thing, it keeps people occupied. If there are no queues anywhere people will have done everything by lunch and there's nothing left to keep them on park and spending!
 
Dar said:
If they put the second on, the queue would be cleared, and then they're back to needing to take the train off to save costs. Which also costs, because lots of companies need a tech to move trains, when they could be doing something more important!

A certain amout of queue is a good thing, it keeps people occupied. If there are no queues anywhere people will have done everything by lunch and there's nothing left to keep them on park and spending!
Click to expand...
Tbh if a ride has a minimum of a 20 minute wait when running one train, then if you add on another another train there would still be no empty spots on the train. It’s only when the queue is less then 20 minutes (rough estimate) with less than one train when adding on another train would cause empty spaces on the train
 
Markus.Downhill said:
Tbh if a ride has a minimum of a 20 minute wait when running one train, then if you add on another another train there would still be no empty spots on the train. It’s only when the queue is less then 20 minutes (rough estimate) with less than one train when adding on another train would cause empty spaces on the train
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that's not how that works. If the queue is remaining stable at 20 minutes with one train then putting a second train on will take that queue down to nothing in 20minutes.

Let's use corkscrew at Cedar Point as a random example (because I have the Rcdb page for it open right now)

Thats listed as a capacity of 1800 per hour. So with one train instead of two running that's 900 per hour.
So in 20mins (1/3 of an hour) the ride can shift 300 people.

So if the queue is at 20mins then we can say that there are 300 in the queue and if its staying stable at 20mind then there must be 300 people people joining the queue every 20minutes to replace thea 300 people riding every 20minutes

When you put a second train on then the capacity will double so the ride will now take 600 people every 20minutes.
With only 300 people joining the queue every 20 minutes it will only take 20 minutes after they add the train for the queue to entirely dissapear (its now taken the 300 in the queue and the 300 that joined in that time) and then they are left in the situation where they have 2 trains on the track for no reason.

So It only makes sense to put a second train on if the number of people joining the queue is higher than the number of people the ride can take in the same period. And therefore the queue time is increasing over time. I assume there will be some threshold number for any given ride which means they will add a second train.

Hope that makes sense :)

(before any geeks point out that adding a seconds train doesn't exactly double capacity and that the time taken to add the second train will add more people to the queue as no ones riding, I know :p this is an idealised example)
 
A
roomraider said:
I'm afraid that's not how that works. If the queue is remaining stable at 20 minutes with one train then putting a second train on will take that queue down to nothing in 20minutes.

Let's use corkscrew at Cedar Point as a random example (because I have the Rcdb page for it open right now)

Thats listed as a capacity of 1800 per hour. So with one train instead of two running that's 900 per hour.
So in 20mins (1/3 of an hour) the ride can shift 300 people.

So if the queue is at 20mins then we can say that there are 300 in the queue and if its staying stable at 20mind then there must be 300 people people joining the queue every 20minutes to replace thea 300 people riding every 20minutes

When you put a second train on then the capacity will double so the ride will now take 600 people every 20minutes.
With only 300 people joining the queue every 20 minutes it will only take 20 minutes after they add the train for the queue to entirely dissapear (its now taken the 300 in the queue and the 300 that joined in that time) and then they are left in the situation where they have 2 trains on the track for no reason.

So It only makes sense to put a second train on if the number of people joining the queue is higher than the number of people the ride can take in the same period. And therefore the queue time is increasing over time. I assume there will be some threshold number for any given ride which means they will add a second train.

Hope that makes sense :)

(before any geeks point out that adding a seconds train doesn't exactly double capacity and that the time taken to add the second train will add more people to the queue as no ones riding, I know :p this is an idealised example)
Click to expand...
Ah ok, so how many blocks will the Jurassic coaster have?
 
Universal originally attended to have virtual queue on Hagrid’s but never happened until Corona, why was there no virtual queue when it opened? Also do you think the Jurassic coaster will have a virtual queue?
 
That looks awesome!
This is probably a stupid question but does anyone know why the rockwork at the back is transparent? I've noticed when they add the new bits of rockwork in, it appears to be see-through but then is eventually fully painted? Do they just add on extra layers of some type of material?
 
Scott Lannigan said:
That looks awesome!
This is probably a stupid question but does anyone know why the rockwork at the back is transparent? I've noticed when they add the new bits of rockwork in, it appears to be see-through but then is eventually fully painted? Do they just add on extra layers of some type of material?
Click to expand...
They use a chicken-wire type mesh to form the rough shape of the rockwork, before coating with the plaster/cement for the final 'rock' effect.

Bit like this, from Universal Rocks:
-phantasialand-klugheim-cover-match.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top