Train design and capacity
- More
- 1 of 2
- 2
Long time reader with only my second post here, but with all the uproar over the Ticket To Ride situation, something came to mind...
I was wondering why the trains for the Force, or hyper/giga coasters in general don't utilize four across seating in the vain of the B&M coasters. Wouldn't this in effect double their capacity? Is this not a consideration strictly because of astethics or is there a more concrete structural reason?
I was wondering why the trains for the Force, or hyper/giga coasters in general don't utilize four across seating in the vain of the B&M coasters. Wouldn't this in effect double their capacity? Is this not a consideration strictly because of astethics or is there a more concrete structural reason?
Apollo's Chariot has 4-across trains, and that is because it is a B&M coaster. So does Raging Bull, as it is a B&M creation also. Both are hypercoasters.
Maybe I should have posted this in the Force thread, but my question I guess is more in general. Isn't the capacity on these coasters greater than similar coasters with two across seating? If that's true, and what we all want is high capacity, what is stopping them from building ALL coasters this way?
I think a B&M coaster wouldnt be able to withstand going 90+mph, because of their trains and the weight on their trains. I think their fastest coaster is only like 70 I believe, but who knows what the future holds.
It is a seriously slow day at work, so here I am posting again...
I wasn't really thinking of putting a B&M built train on anything other than a B&M, rather I wonder why Arrow for example didn't design their hyper trains four across, or why Intamin didn't use the same style Force trains, but only four across. It would increase capacity wouldn't it?
I wasn't really thinking of putting a B&M built train on anything other than a B&M, rather I wonder why Arrow for example didn't design their hyper trains four across, or why Intamin didn't use the same style Force trains, but only four across. It would increase capacity wouldn't it?
I don't think the capacity is different. On Intamin and Arrow trains, each car has 2 rows of 2. Each car on Raging Bull (or any B&M) has 1 row of 4. Either way you get 4 per car.
*** This post was edited by Camel on 6/28/2000. ***
I guess I'm not getting my point across here very well...
Let's forget about B&M for a minute. Why didn't Intamin take exactly the same trains they have now, (4 seats per car) and instead make them 8 seats per car?
I understand that it simply isn't possible to do this now, but I wonder why this isn't a consideration during initial design. Or is it? Would it just look totally stupid, or are there not wheels in existance that could handle it, or maybe the track couldn't handle the extra weight?
Why is it that they don't do this? *** This post was edited by BirdDK1 on 6/28/2000. ***
Let's forget about B&M for a minute. Why didn't Intamin take exactly the same trains they have now, (4 seats per car) and instead make them 8 seats per car?
I understand that it simply isn't possible to do this now, but I wonder why this isn't a consideration during initial design. Or is it? Would it just look totally stupid, or are there not wheels in existance that could handle it, or maybe the track couldn't handle the extra weight?
Why is it that they don't do this? *** This post was edited by BirdDK1 on 6/28/2000. ***
All technical considerations aside, I'm very glad Intamin trains are two across. I really don't like 4 across trains very much. They don't produce the feeling of openess you get with a two across train. I kind of feel like I'm flying in a wide body airliner, you lose some of the feeling of flight due to the size of the vehicle. The two middle seats are especially bad. MF would lose some nice visuals with 4 across trains.
Capacity: Raptor carries 32 per cycle, Magnum and Millennium Force carry 36 per cycle. So much for that argument... 8-)
I think the primary reason is a design consideration. If you put four seats in a row, you end up with two lousy seats in each row of the train. With two seats per row, you end up with two decent seats in each row. Also, most people seem to naturally fit into groups of two, three, and four, and it appears to me that on coasters with 4-across seating, there tend to be more empty seats on a typical train than on a train with 2-across seating. I've seen Raptor and Mantis go out with one person in a row that can handle four because a single rider is followed in the queue by a group of four people. Perhaps Intamin could have built a 72-passenger train, but then every seat would not necessarily be a good one.
--Dave Althoff, Jr., who apparently can't count, hence the edit...
*** This post was edited by RideMan on 6/28/2000. ***
I think the primary reason is a design consideration. If you put four seats in a row, you end up with two lousy seats in each row of the train. With two seats per row, you end up with two decent seats in each row. Also, most people seem to naturally fit into groups of two, three, and four, and it appears to me that on coasters with 4-across seating, there tend to be more empty seats on a typical train than on a train with 2-across seating. I've seen Raptor and Mantis go out with one person in a row that can handle four because a single rider is followed in the queue by a group of four people. Perhaps Intamin could have built a 72-passenger train, but then every seat would not necessarily be a good one.
--Dave Althoff, Jr., who apparently can't count, hence the edit...
*** This post was edited by RideMan on 6/28/2000. ***
Which brings up another question. Why didn't they simply add another car or two on each train?
-------------
Dispatch Master, This is Transport one! I'm losing control, I'm losing control!
-------------
Dispatch Master, This is Transport one! I'm losing control, I'm losing control!
I wondered about this a while ago too.
(I'm not sure about this, but maybe RideMan could clarify this)
The more cars = more weight which = more G's in the turns.
I was also thinking that:
There is a "+" side and "-" side to this.
The "+" side is that more momentum would make it go faster through the circuit which = a more intense ride.
The "-" side is that the faster it goes, the less of a ride there is.....But if it WERE this fast, they would have made it longer to burn off more speed, and to possibly capture the longest coaster record.
(I'm not sure about this, but maybe RideMan could clarify this)
The more cars = more weight which = more G's in the turns.
I was also thinking that:
There is a "+" side and "-" side to this.
The "+" side is that more momentum would make it go faster through the circuit which = a more intense ride.
The "-" side is that the faster it goes, the less of a ride there is.....But if it WERE this fast, they would have made it longer to burn off more speed, and to possibly capture the longest coaster record.
What about patents. If B&M patent the design then no one can do it.
-------------
Millennium Force Rides:2
Magnum XL-200 Drop:3
-------------
Millennium Force Rides:2
Magnum XL-200 Drop:3
Does anyone know the physical dimensions of the trains? Is the Raging Bull train longer than the MF train or vice versa? Just because it is 4 across doesn't mean it is shorter... I don't know if that is what any of you were thinking in above posts. I would guess (pure guess) that the trains are almost the same length whether a 4 across car is used or a two across one.
Mantis and Raptor have eight cars, Millennium Force has nine. Each coaster has four riders PER CAR. The Arrow coasters have the highest capacity because they have six per car.
-------------
Dispatch Master, This is Transport one! I'm losing control, I'm losing control!
-------------
Dispatch Master, This is Transport one! I'm losing control, I'm losing control!
Millennium Force's trains are much MUCH longer than any B&M trains.
Let's think this through logically:
First off let's start off with the sheer length of the MF station, can you even get close to running full speed in a B&M station?-not a chance. On the other hand, in the MF station it is pretty close. (I should know, let's just say I was a little excited for the front seat and I didn't want anyone else to take it from me)
Now for the dimensions of the stations(not in exact numbers). The MF station is almost, if not twice as long as any B&M's station.
And for the trains dimensions(also not in exact numbers). Let's assume that every row on the MF trains are the same width as the rows on B&M's(if they aren't, they are pretty darn close). This would account for 18 rows. That's 2 1/4 B&M trains!
Logically, the MF trains are as I stated before much MUCH longer than the B&M trains.
Let's think this through logically:
First off let's start off with the sheer length of the MF station, can you even get close to running full speed in a B&M station?-not a chance. On the other hand, in the MF station it is pretty close. (I should know, let's just say I was a little excited for the front seat and I didn't want anyone else to take it from me)
Now for the dimensions of the stations(not in exact numbers). The MF station is almost, if not twice as long as any B&M's station.
And for the trains dimensions(also not in exact numbers). Let's assume that every row on the MF trains are the same width as the rows on B&M's(if they aren't, they are pretty darn close). This would account for 18 rows. That's 2 1/4 B&M trains!
Logically, the MF trains are as I stated before much MUCH longer than the B&M trains.
They are longer because, while they do have a little more foot room. The Millennium Force trains have two in the front and two in the back of each car. The Raptor and Mantis cars have two side by side. They hold about the same amount of people.
-------------
Dispatch Master, This is Transport one! I'm losing control, I'm losing control!
-------------
Dispatch Master, This is Transport one! I'm losing control, I'm losing control!
- More
- 1 of 2
- 2
You must be logged in to post