Extended Closure

djDaemon:

I mean, multiple quotes are imperative when getting a bathroom remodeled,

Did onpointtony reveal the various competing bidders for that magnificent Reno of the Magnum restrooms? Kudos to them, it is flush with great workmanship.

Unfortunately the tradition of wet floors under the urinals in the men's side of the Magnum restrooms has continued even with the renovation

To me, the claim that Cedar Point first approached Intamin in regards to a reimagining individually doesn't seem that far fetched.

The situation with Maverick vs. a B&M proposal (which I believe it was a floorless design?) is different as Cedar Point closed WWL, had the land and more than likely sent out an RFP scope with various land usage options on the table.

Sending out an RFP buckshot with what equates to a blank canvas make sense. When it comes to a ride that was designed by a specific manufacturer, it makes sense to me to approach them first about modifications / redesign ideas prior to sending out to others. The original firm would have all of the insight into the existing ride, it's design and all facets of the ride, while any other manufacturer would have to do a decent amount of R&D to fit their designs into existing specifications, at least to a certain respect.

Prior to RMC, how many coasters have been "reimagined" by another manufacturer, outside of manufacturing new / replacement trains?

Off-hand, I can only think of two: Phantom's Revenge (Dana Morgan had a long history with Arrow prior to leaving and starting his own company) and Powder Keg (originally BuzzSaw Falls, with both the initial design and redesign done by Stengel but manufactured by Premier and S&S, respectively).

I'm just pointing out that it would be abnormal for CP to approach only one vendor for a project. And also damn stupid, in my opinion, especially considering it's Intamin we're talking about.

CoasterLine:

Prior to RMC...

Yes, I suppose it's true that if we ignore the numerous examples of coasters being re-imagined by other companies, there aren't many examples of coasters being re-imagined by other companies. Similarly, it's also true that if we ignore all the coasters Intamin has built, they don't have any experience building coasters.

But seriously, remind me again - how many stratacoasters has Intamin converted from hydraulic launch to LSM?

your point of contention is that CP didn't contact Intamin first? You think they contacted all the manufacturers on the same day as Intamin?

djDaemon:

I'm just pointing out that it would be abnormal for CP to approach only one vendor for a project.

Don't we need to know what is normal before we can determine what is abnormal? Do we know that CP normally goes out to multiple vendors on a green field project? And then how do we correlate that "normal" to a brownfield project?

Aside from the strawman argument that you're trying to make, let's think a little deeper...

Yes, for a standard project it would likely be "damn stupid" for Cedar Point to approach only one vendor, unless they had a specific idea in their head for exactly what they want to do with said project.

Yes, I suppose it's true that if we ignore the numerous examples of coasters being re-imagined by other companies, there aren't many examples of coasters being re-imagined by other companies.

Ah, you mentioned "companies" (plural). Please mention some of these other companies, as I had specifically posed that question.

I'm also entirely sure that Cedar Point put out RFPs to B&M, Vekoma, Intamin as well as RMC when wanting to reimagine Mean Streak... You know, to be sure.

But seriously, remind me again - how many stratacoasters has Intamin converted from hydraulic launch to LSM?

How many stratacoasters has anyone ever converted? With a history at zero, my first step would be going to the company that designed and manufactured the original product. But that's probably just because I'm stupid.

Sometimes your contrarian standpoint is amusing and useful and sometimes it's just straight up obnoxious.

Shades:

Do we know that CP normally goes out to multiple vendors on a green field project?

Yes, based on comments from the park spokesperson for this project specifically, and at least one former GM regarding projects in general.

Shades:
And then how do we correlate that "normal" to a brownfield project?

I feel like too much is being made of the existing structure in this case. Yes, it's certainly a unique limitation, but every project comes with limitations, whether it's location, available land area, topography, type of attraction, cost, targeted guest, opening date, etc.

Obviously that will depend on the specific project. I doubt that CP reached out to anyone other than RMC for SV, for example. And of course it's entirely possible CP did reach out to Intamin, and only Intamin, for this project.

But if that's the case, it does substantiate that Intamin still sucks to work with. If one of the largest customers in the industry is somehow, against all odds, still willing to give you a shot at a major project after so many issues, how on Earth are you going to drag your feet when your initial proposal is rejected?

djDaemon:

Yes, based on comments from the park spokesperson for this project specifically...

Which is not a green field project.

...and at least one former GM regarding projects in general.

Generally speaking is a pretty wide open statement. I can say that we went out to multiple vendors on 4 kiddie rides but only 1 vendor for a coaster. Generally speaking we went to multiple vendors is still a truthful statement.

I feel like too much is being made of the existing structure in this case.

Who knows the most about the structure? Why does in not make sense to start there and see where it goes?

I am not saying they did not eventually go to other suppliers but it sure seems plausible that they could have started with Intamin before opening things up to others if Intamin could not meet the parks needs.

All I'm saying is that I don't think ETR is a particularly reliable source of "insider" information. Yes, he's hit on a couple of predictions, but also missed on several others. And as has been pointed out numerous times, if you throw a ton of crap against the wall, some of it is bound to stick. And he's thrown a lot of crap at the wall over the duration of this project.

So, since I personally don't find his reputation to be reliable, my next logical step is to question whether or not his claim makes sense. And to me, it's more likely than not that he's wrong here.

But it's clear that some people have far stronger feelings than I do about this. I'm just trying to open up a lane of logic here rather than rely on the dubious claims of a YouTuber. Carry on.

I am not saying ETR is correct or not. I really don't care. What I am saying is that his claim could be correct. And at the same time I can say that you might be correct.

Speaking for myself I certainly am not trying to defend ETR. All I am doing is opening up two lanes of logic that, while cannot both be true at the same time, could both be true.

Semantic games aside, I think Brandon's point that they solicit proposals from many vendors shouldn't be controversial. I mean, even individuals are going to shop around for the procurement of less capital intensive things. But the idea that people with YouTube channels known anything from the inside is a stretch, because people who really have that kind of access cease to have it when they blab about it.

And by the way, that's why I started CoasterBuzz with tons of full-on rumors, because that's what seemed to make enthusiasts moist (still does, apparently). I pretty quickly abandoned that, because it would have negatively affected my access to actual built new rides and the ability to have events at parks. I miss those epic events. The work to do them, not so much.

It isn't controversial, at least not to me. But at the same time how is it controversial to think that the park could have gone solely to Intamin at the beginning? Is one more plausible than the other - sure. But I am not sure why anyone is having a hard time understanding that either could be correct. That is unless someone has a lot more facts than we are aware of (at least more than I am aware of reading through this thread) at this time.

It’s obvious they contacted more than one company for a proposal. What is not known is the order in which they contacted them. I’m also sure that they had Intamin on the phone within hours of the 2021 incident. What happened between that day and Zamperla’s announcement is between Tony and El Toro Ryan. They will both probably take it to their graves. 😉

TTD effectively closed in 2021. Wild Mouse opened in 2023.

It's almost unimaginable that Intamin and Cedar Point wouldn't be having lots of discussion after the incident. Logic would seem to lead to the idea that a "reimagining" would at some point come up, especially with Intamin toying around with "new and improved" LSM launches.

Also seems logical that at the same time Zamperla, who is working on Wild Mouse, gives a little nudge and is like..."ya know, this might sound crazy, but we're working on a new train and we've got some thoughts...".

If Wild Mouse was never a thing and Zamperla wasn't already effectively "on-site" I think it's perfectly plausible that TT2 as we know it also isn't even a thing. They (Zamperla) were in the right place at the right time to make a play.

Only us nerds would enjoy it, but a brief but informative "How the ride came to be" documentary would be a fun watch. Especially in the case of Top Thrill, with it's shady reputation and horrific ending.

Outside of lawyer talk I doubt Cedar Fair and Intamin had great conversations about much of anything, especially a new ride. No matter what Intamin fanbois think or say online Cedar Fair parks are / were littered with Intamin mistakes. Sometimes, facts hurt.

Kevinj:

Only us nerds would enjoy it, but a brief but informative "How the ride came to be" documentary would be a fun watch

I don’t think that’s true. Examining a 400 foot ride and the problems it’s had over its 2 manufacturers lifecycle would be incredibly interesting for a general audience I think.

You know when the Travel channel actually had cool stuff like that. That’s why coasters are so interesting to me aside from Fun factor. So much work and planning mixed with human error

Kevinj:

Logic would seem to lead to the idea that a "reimagining" would at some point come up, especially with Intamin toying around with "new and improved" LSM launches.

I suspect the "reimagining" idea was already a go before the unfortunate accident occurred in 2021. Perhaps the park already planned TTD's last season was 2022, but then changed given the events of the accident and investigations that followed after. But that's just my guess.

I would definitely like to see a documentary about all of this, I know it is unlikely to happen but it would be interesting to me. I am surprised how many views some of the other documentaries about the amusement industry have, although a lot of those could be the same folks watching them over and over. Not that I have ever done that of course...

Shades:

But at the same time how is it controversial to think that the park could have gone solely to Intamin at the beginning

This likely depends on their corporate policy, which I am almost sure they have. A company I work for requires that any project over $100,000 must be bid by no less than 3 vendors. Even if you know 2 of the 3 will say no, or don't even have the capacity to do what you want.

Kevinj:

Also seems logical that at the same time Zamperla, who is working on Wild Mouse, gives a little nudge and is like..."ya know, this might sound crazy, but we're working on a new train and we've got some thoughts...".

This is common. Had it happen on a lot of projects where a rival company has a small portion of a large project but while they have their foot in the door, they make a pitch that ultimately wins. Next thing you know, the company we normally use is out and the new company is in.