Raw Efficiency

^^^Sam, that's exactly what my reasoning is with Maverick; yes, it's entirely possible to have two trains in the tunnel in an emergency, but I feel that the ride system will do everything in its power to prevent that from ever happening, considering the hard stop that would be necessary for the second train. Therefore, assuming we use the original second train release point, this release point automatically assumes that the first train will complete the launch, and if it doesn't, the ride will cut the lift power to the second train to prevent two trains in the tunnel. With that in mind, I feel that the control system was changed to only dispatch the second train once the first train hits a certain "rollback-proof" speed in the tunnel launch (sort of like the top-of-hill proximity sensor on Top Thrill Dragster). That way, having two trains in the tunnel is an impossibility under normal conditions, and the train release is now based on facts, not assumptions; correspondingly, the ride's safety is much more assured. Of course, even though this control change keeps the ride safer than the original release point, the costs include the ride's overall efficiency and the dueling aesthetics inherent to the layout. I guess "better safe than sorry" certainly applies to this situation.

^The ride was designed to do that stop if needed, and CP and Intamin should both have known that the ride needed to leave that possibility to duel.

We can see that efficiency is the thing that has killed capacity on several rides. In some cases it's simply staff reduction: why have five platform attendants when you can have two? In others, there are system programming issues in place. Magnum takes way too long to enter the station and park. Mine Ride takes far too long to enter the station and park. Blue Streak waits too long after dispatching one train from the loading area before allowing the other train to enter.

But I think one of the issues that has taken hold in a big way at Cedar Point is what I call the 'safety problem'. Every so often, for whatever reason there is a change made in the operational protocol. Maybe a response to an incident, maybe a response to an incident somewhere else, maybe just something that seems like a good idea at the time.

The trouble is, there is no way of evaluating these changes. How can one say that is is a bad idea to add a supplemental restraint to any ride? That there isn't a benefit to pulling a restraint instead of merely looking at it? That it isn't a good idea to have the operators stand away from the train before it starts moving? That there isn't some benefit to checking every lap bar twice?

It's a terrible situation, really. If you have an incident, then there was probably something you could have done better. But if you don't have an incident, you might have done enough. There's no way to know if you've done too much. Until we have an incident *caused* by inefficiencies resulting from the piling on of new processes, there's no way to know you've gone too far. Even at that, there was an incident where a pair of trains crashed into each other, and the collision would not have happened if the ride had been running efficiently. But the incident was not blamed on the inefficiency that resulted in the conditions leading to the collision, but rather on the failure of an automatic safety system which was intended to prevent the collision. So again, while more efficient operation would have prevented the incident, so would the automatic system, so there is no way to say conclusively that the "safety" procedures contributed to the incident.

Of course, nobody wants to have an incident. Nobody wants to be in the position of doing something wrong, or of not doing something that could have prevented an incident. So short of having a complete reexamination of the operational procedures on some of the rides, we're not going to see an improvement.

Incidentally, the relevant ASTM standards are silent on the specifics of how to operate a ride. The design standard, F2291, indicates that the designer/engineer must consider the operation of the ride, and requires hazard analysis and mitigation. It even recommends restraint configurations. The operations standard, F770, requires that the owner/operator of the ride must develop an operating procedure, considering the information provided by the designer/engineer, but again, ASTM gives the ultimate authority to the Owner/Operator to define the operating procedure, based on instructions (if any) provided by the manufacturer.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Of the 15 parks I visited last summer, the most impressive crew I experienced was, hands down, the one running Fury 325. I have never seen anything like it... They usually had us out of the station so quickly that we actually had to stop and wait before it would let us go up the lift hill.
They were an awesome crew... They were actually counting down from 5 to get your seatbelts fastened.
Cedar Fair should record them to use in training videos.

Maverick efficiency is extremely bad since they eliminated the single rider line. Very irritating to consistently see 2 or 3 empty seats on a train that only holds 12 people.

That's an exaggeration compared to my experience. Yes, maybe 1 or 2 seats per dispatch go unused, but that's among 24 seats per dispatch, not 12.

And it's not as if that 8% loss of efficiency would be completely eliminated with the single rider line, given that to fill the empty seat(s), they have to:

1. recognize that a single seat is unoccupied
2. call for a single rider
3. wait for the single rider to make his or her way to the seat
4. wait for the single rider to get strapped in so they can check the restraint

That takes a fair amount of time in my experience.

They assigned a single rider from each line together. Now they don't even try. It's extremely common for at least 3 or 4 seats PER DISPATCH or 1 or 2 seats per train to go unused.
I, being someone who despises Fast Lane, pay attention to this. They should use the same entrance for FL that they originally used and have those people meet at the entrance to the platform so single riders can be paired up whether they are general admission or FL users and no extra employees would be needed like now.

I think the only time I have seen an empty seat on Goliath at SFGA is when someone is using the exit as the entrance, such as Flash Pass users or they are handicapped.
But, for the most part, those trains leave the station fully loaded.

Zoug68 said:

It's extremely common for at least 3 or 4 seats PER DISPATCH or 1 or 2 seats per train to go unused.

We must be visiting different Cedar Points.

I've seen single riders riding with one in front of the other. There is absolutely no effort to pair up riders at all on Maverick, anymore.

^Also, it's annoying to not see single riders paired as well with Valravn. Valravn's theoretical / listed capacity (1200PPH) is actually similar to Maverick's, and even if Valravn probably has a higher true capacity*, it still isn't the people eater that the other B&Ms are, and it needs all the extra efficiency it can get, it being the newest coaster and all.

Unfortunately, Valravn's station architecture has no dedicated single rider line like Maverick's did pre-Fastlane, because the only alternate staircase is... Fast Lane.

*Simply put, both rides dispatch 24 people at once, but Valravn almost certainly has the faster dispatches.

Actually, efficiency would curb people's desires to purchase FL, so, now I know why they don't even try to fill trains, anymore.
Kinda like convincing you to purchase a souvenir cup but then telling you that it had to be stored in a $2 locker.

Right, that explains why the GK crew is so lousy.

I actually think Doug has a point. Not saying it's happening, but in theory, a park that only cares about money has no reason to take the extra steps maximize efficiency. Maximizing efficiency costs money (workers, maintenance of running more trains and running them more often) and makes no direct profit, while FLP costs little and makes huge amounts of profit for its cost.

I just hope CP doesn't get that greedy.

(On another note, Europa, the park that has started to beat CP in the highly marketable title of "Best Amusement Park in the World", has no FL system and puts trains out at sub-minute intervals while possible. Just saying.)

Comparing Gatekeeper to Maverick is apples to oranges. Gatekeeper can have 64 people actually moving on the course, including the lift hill while Maverick can only have up to 24 people moving that are not in the brake section. I would guess that is why they originally had a single rider line.m
Gatekeeper's capacity is rated at 50% more people per hour.

GigaG said:

...a park that only cares about money has no reason to take the extra steps maximize efficiency.

Except that guests in line spend less money than those on the midway.

Zoug68 said:

Comparing Gatekeeper to Maverick is apples to oranges.

I'm not comparing them. I'm dispelling your theory that the park is deliberately trying to hinder capacity to boost FL sales.

Gatekeeper is a ride that most people don't ride more than a couple of times. It's very rare that Maverick stops for people puking compared to Gatekeeper.
Why GK is FL plus boggles my mind since even on Sundays, it's usually walk right into the station by 4pm.
As far as Maverick is concerned, that ride should be fully loaded to get more people through before each break down which I would bet every single person on this site who rides Maverick has had to wait for at least once in the past. I rarely make it to the stairs without it stopping. I just dread hearing that phone ring while being in that line.

Even if true, none of that is relevant to your original point, which was that CP artificially degrades capacity in order to sell FL passes.

The incredible hustle of the GK crew (in addition to several other crews) disproves your theory.

As a former employee (ride host), I can guarantee you that we were NEVER told that we needed to go slower for any other reason than safety.

Our team had a goal (850,000 riders) and we did everything we could to get as many cycles in a day as we possibly could.

To think that's changed because they want to sell FL is absurd. One of Cedar Points cornerstones is Capacity. You ever see the flags with that say Capacity, Appearance, etc? Ride Hosts at every ride are measured by those cornerstones. How would that look to employees if they were told they needed to slow down or not send as many people on a train as they could because they needed to sell more passes.

It's absurd.

I actually like it that they don't force you to pair up. If I'm riding alone and someone asks if they can ride in the other seat I most always say it is OK. But, I've had too many occasions of riding with smelly people or people putting their hands in my face while attempting to hold them up that I'm glad the ride ops don't force you to ride with someone.