Gr.Adv.Debate #11: Rolling Thunder Alternative in 1979

[29yrswithaGApass]

In 1979, Great Adventure's budget was used to put in a dual track wooden coaster. Instead of investing in two 3200 foot tracks, would the money have been better spent in building one 6400 foot wooden coaster?

[ThemeParkRider]

Definitely the two coaster plan: You can market it as two rides if necessary, it reduces wait times, and if one side is closed the other can still operate.

[FlumeOp1974]

I went with Rolling Thunder as is. But, If it was to been in a diffrent loaction in Frontier Adventures Id have go for the single track. Im thinking the station could have neen were the sidewalk ended. Under the log flume just before the last hill. leading to the station. Thus causing more foot traffic under BEst of the West and along Shoot Out and HatsHats
!

Edited May 3, 2013 by FlumeOp1974

[29yrswithaGApass]

I think racing was a better choice. If Great Adventure decided to make a 6400' single track coaster they would not have been able to brag because Kings Island built the much longer Beast that same season in 1979.

[Yoshi]

For 1979, I think the 2 track design was a better choice since there weren't a lot of coasters in the park at the time and they needed a high capacity ride with 2 tracks. Now I'd rather have seen it as a single track 6400 foot track coaster since I always seem to find the ride only running 1 side and when both sides are running they don't always race.

[Guest Moonracker7]

the 2 track made sense for 2 reasons...1)LL...2)no coaster was over a mile existed in the 70's or 80's

[Coaster Justin]

2 Coasters. Higher Capacity and more credits.