Snake River Falls not working also?

Yes, but without waterfalls.

Wow. What an idea for Skyride. Disneyland and Disneyworld had the skyride that went through the mountain. Why not have a skyride that goes through a waterfall. You have the covering on top so it would be minimally soaking. Or it could just be for effect and not intended for a dousing. But that would mean the park would have to add theming...and keep it up.

^Certainly that's the only major obstacle for this coming to fruition. Let's pass around the hat and see who's willing to contribute.

I guess it won’t matter in a few weeks….

Can you people in the know please explain to me how some rides reach the end of service life, while others (Blue Streak) will apparently never reach that end. I think it is an excuse to demolish rides that people like. And speaking of Blue Streak, what part of that coaster is actually original?

I think you may have just answered your own question.

CoasterHawk:

Can you people in the know please explain to me how some rides reach the end of service life, while others (Blue Streak) will apparently never reach that end.

Having worked at another park and having been able to spend a good chunk of time talking with the maintenance and operation teams it's my understanding that there are a couple of factors that play into a ride reaching the end of service life:

1. The structure of the ride. A ride like Blue Streak that's wood where a structural repair is removing an old wood board for a new wood board is a lot easier (and cheaper) than replacing a metal support that would need to likely be replaced in its entirety (ex: Fury last year that was closed for a period of time waiting for a new support to be manufactured and installed).
2. The components of a ride. As rides get older their computer systems become dated and parts can become harder to find and trains need replaced. The park I worked at has a ride where they were very blunt and said it was within the last 5 years of its service life unless the park wanted to do an entire electrical overhaul for the ride as the system was incredibly dated and parts were nearly impossible to find.
3. The cost of running the ride. New technology in many cases is inherently cheaper to run than old technology. In the case of Snake River Falls the park knows exactly how much it costs to run each time a boat is dispatched. That cost likely has grown through the years as maintenance upkeep increases and the park may have gotten to a point where they said this isn't worth the cost especially if they know of something else that they can put in that spot that either has a lower operating cost or will bring more people to the ride. Parks care a ton about the cost per rider number and if it's significantly higher than some new rides is projected to be then that ride may be in trouble. Especially if it is constantly being dispatched with empty seats.

Something that goes along with the first 2 of these and from my understanding is looked at in parallel with them is the ridership. When Fury had the crack in the support obviously they choose to replace it because for them that is their flagship attraction and it was worth the investment because people come to the park just to ride Fury. But say that happened to a ride like Corkscrew where the ridership was significantly lower. Would Cedar Point make the same decision? Same thing with a complete overhaul of any computer systems in a ride. That's an expensive endeavor and if the ridership is low then is it worth investing $1M+ in the ride when it won't impact how many people are going to ride it?

CoasterHawk:
I think it is an excuse to demolish rides that people like.

I am of the generation where I grew up playing the NCAA video games and when they were working on the new game EA spent a lot of time discussing how they were trying to make sure they paid attention to the details for every school not just the big ones because "every school is somebody's favorite". I think that can be applied to everything including rides. Yeah there are certainly going to be people that are upset that this ride is closing because they like it (myself included) but the reality is if there isn't a ride at the park where they could remove it and somebody wouldn't be upset because to them that was the best ride in the park. I work in a food service job and we just removed something from the menu where it accounted for less than 1% of our sales yet we still heard from upset guests about it because to them that was why they came in but we can't justify having something that is that low in sales when we have 20+ other options we can put in that spot that are going to be more popular.

That One Coaster Guy,

Thanks for that explanation. Yes, it makes sense from the immediate point of view. But what does it do to people's perception of the park long-term? I know of people who just don't go anymore because it is not the park it used to be. But yes, there are those who think it is better than ever. So, can you tell me something else? How do parks like Kennywood keep their ancient rides going and popular and other parks can't? Thanks.

CoasterHawk:

But what does it do to people's perception of the park long-term? I know of people who just don't go anymore because it is not the park it used to be.

The reality is there are always going to be people that think things are worse than they used to be. With music a majority of people have their music taste solidified in middle school or high school and most people would say the best era for music would be the era when they were those ages. I think it's the same thing here. People have a nostalgia for how things were and in their head as they get older and things get removed they perceive those memories as being more than they were and feel as if the park isn't what it used to be and some may make the choice not to go anymore. (I'm willing to bet though that if a lot of older attractions came back today in the exact same state they were in when they were removed a lot of people would be disappointed).

From a park perspective they don't really care if one person doesn't want to go anymore especially if their marketing team is doing their job. For every 10 people that choose not to go anymore because the park removed X then marketing should be able to get 100 people to show up for the first time because they installed Y and hopefully at least 10 of those become repeat guests. The trick is just making sure that most of the time what is removed is truly at the end of its service life and/or low in popularity.

CoasterHawk:
How do parks like Kennywood keep their ancient rides going and popular and other parks can't?

I have never been nor have I spent very much time studying Kennywood so take all of this as my opinion from both what little I do know about the park and about business in general. I would say it likely comes down to 2 things:

1. Kennywood's management team may feel as if the state of the park is where they want it and they see more value to keeping things the way they are rather than changing them. There are also exceptions to every rule and it's possible that they may have internal numbers that show removing X for Y would actually have more of a negative impact than a positive one.
2. They may not have the financial backing that other parks (like Cedar Point) have. While doing an overhaul on a ride is expensive, it's still not nearly as expensive as building a new attraction. If they have a budget of $5M a year for new projects then they may opt to spend $3M on keeping the rides they have up and running and then bank the $2M for a major project a few years down the road. To them that may be worth it because the risk of not investing in overhauls of their current rides and having a ride go down and sit SBNO for 3 years until they have the money to rip it out and replace it with something new is greater than spending the money up front to keep it running and only being able to build a major attraction every 5 years.