Launch of the Rings

Transcription

Launch of the Rings

Launch of the Rings
B3: Group Design Projects.
The Oxford Roller Coaster.
Engineering Department.
University of Oxford.
Authors
Arthur Coates
William Hancock
Charlie Hill
Max Jackson
Edward Jamie McDonald
St. Johns’ College
Worcester College
Pembroke College
Lincoln College
Supervisors
Dr. S. J. Payne
Dr. M. Chappell
Keble College
FINAL HONOUR SCHOOL OF ENG / EEM (delete as appropriate)
DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP
You should complete this certificate. It should be bound into your third year project report,
immediately after the title page. Three copies of the report should be submitted to the Chairman
of Examiners for the Honour School of Engineering Science, c/o Clerk of the Schools, Examination
Schools, High Street, Oxford.
Name (in capitals):
ARTHUR COATES
College (in capitals):
Supervisor:
ST. JOHNS’ COLLEGE
DR. S. J. PAYNE
Title of project (in capitals):
B3: GROUP DESIGN PROJECT.
THE OXFORD ROLLER COASTER.
Page count __30__
Please tick to confirm the following:
I have read and understood the University’s disciplinary regulations concerning conduct in
examinations and, in particular, the regulations on plagiarism (Essential Information for
Students. The Proctors’ and Assessor’s Memorandum, Section 9.6; also available at
www.admin.ox.ac.uk/proctors/info/pam/section9.shtml).
I have read and understood the Education Committee’s information and guidance on
academic good practice and plagiarism at www.admin.ox.ac.uk/edc/goodpractice.
The project report I am submitting is entirely my own work except where otherwise
indicated.
It has not been submitted, either partially or in full, for another Honour School or
qualification of this University (except where the Special Regulations for the subject permit
this), or for a qualification at any other institution.
I have clearly indicated the presence of all material I have quoted from other sources,
including any diagrams, charts, tables or graphs.
I have clearly indicated the presence of all paraphrased material with appropriate
references.
I have acknowledged appropriately any assistance I have received in addition to that
provided by my supervisor.
I have not copied from the work of any other candidate.
I have not used the services of any agency providing specimen, model or ghostwritten work
in the preparation of this thesis/dissertation/extended essay/assignment/project/other
submitted work. (See also section 2.4 of Statute XI on University Discipline under which
members of the University are prohibited from providing material of this nature for
candidates in examinations at this University or elsewhere:
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/statutes/352-051a.shtml#_Toc28142348.)
The project report does not exceed 30 pages (including all diagrams, photographs,
references and appendices).
I agree to retain an electronic copy of this work until the publication of my final examination
result, except where submission in hand-written format is permitted.
I agree to make any such electronic copy available to the examiners should it be necessary
to confirm my word count or to check for plagiarism.
Candidate’s signature: …………………………………………………
Date: ..………………..
Name (in capitals):
WILLIAM HANCOCK
Supervisor:
ST. JOHNS’ COLLEGE
DR. S. J. PAYNE
Page count __30__
indicated.
references.
Date: ..………………..
Name (in capitals):
CHARLIE HILL
Supervisor:
WORCESTER COLLEGE
DR. S. J. PAYNE
Page count __29__
indicated.
references.
Date: ..………………..
Name (in capitals):
MAX JACKSON
Supervisor:
PEMBROKE COLLEGE
DR. S. J. PAYNE
Page count __30__
indicated.
references.
Date: ..………………..
Name (in capitals):
EDWARD JAMIE MCDONALD
Supervisor:
LINCOLN COLLEGE
DR. S. J. PAYNE
Page count __30__
indicated.
references.
Date: ..………………..
William Hancock
Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Oxford Area action plan was adopted in 2008 and states that ‘a high quality and
mixed-use development, as befits its location and role, will be created.’ In accordance with
this plan, the construction of ‘Launch of the Rings’ has been proposed on Oxpens Meadow.
‘Launch of the Rings’ is a roller coaster that will compete with the best rides in the world
whilst maintaining superb standards of safety. The ride not only complements the historic
nature of Oxford City but also has carefully been designed with high standards of
environmental responsibility. The economic viability of the roller-coaster will ensure a life
time profit of £24 million, while the ride itself will create a vibrant landmark for the city.
0: CONTENTS PAGE
1. Introduction
3 1.1 Introduction to the project
5 1.2 Site Description
2. The Roller Coaster
7 2.1 Final Design
8 2.2 Elements
11 2.3 Design Iteration
16 2.4 Layouts
18 2.5 Competition
3. Ride Characteristics
21 3.1 Flying Coaster
22 3.2 Patents
24 3.3 Loading Method
25 3.4 Cart Design
26 3.5 Throughput
29 3.6 Cart Details
33 3.7 Launch
39 3.8 Braking
42 3.9 Control System
47 3.10 Wheels
4. Foundations and Framework
49 4.1 Geology
52 4.2 Foundations
58 4.3 Construction Companies
59 4.4 Structural Analysis
59 4.5 Dynamics and Force Analysis
66 4.6 Fatigue Analysis
69 4.7 Stress Analysis
73 4.8 Further Structural Considerations
Author
EM
WH
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
MJ
EM
EM
EM
EM
CH
WH
WH
WH
WH
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
William Hancock
Page 2
5. Construction
76 5.1 Construction Methods
81 5.2 Manufacturing Process
82 5.3 Time and Cost
85 5.4 Materials
6. Environment and Area Considerations
88 6.1 Sustainability Intro
89 6.2 Renewable Energy
94 6.3 Environmental Sustainability
97 6.4 Social Sustainability
99 6.5 Economic Sustainability
101 6.6 Council Planning Policies
103 6.7 Flood Risk
107 6.8 Noise Pollution
111 6.9 Bomb Risk
112 6.10 Transport
7. Safety
117 7.1 Risk Assessment
121 7.2 Maintenance
122 7.3 Legislation
8. Theme
124 8.1 Commercial
125 8.2 Implementation
127 8.3 Ring Location
128 8.4 Building Design
9. Commercial
131 9.1 View Analysis
132 9.2 USPs
133 9.3 Economics Model
133 9.4 Ticket Prices
139 9.5 Commercial Throughput
140 9.6 Costs
142 9.7 Spreadsheet
145 9.8 Long Term Business Plan
147 9.9 Conclusions
10. Appendix
149 10.1 Appendix to 6.8: Noise Pollution
AC: Arthur Coates.
WH: Will Hancock.
CH: Charlie Hill.
MJ: Max Jackson.
EM: Edward Jamie McDonald.
Report edited and collated by: Charlie Hill
EM
MJ
MJ
MJ
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
WH
WH
WH
WH
CH
EM
EM
EM
CH
WH
MJ
MJ
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
WH
Page 3
1: INTRODUCTION
1.1: Introduction to the project
This report outlines plans to bring an exciting new tourist attraction to the centre of Oxford.
Oxpens Meadow will be transformed by ‘Launch of the Rings’, a thrilling roller coaster able to
measure up to any of the many world-class rides already present in the UK. It will have a truly
unique edge, being by far the largest roller coaster in the country to exist outside a theme park and
is within a mile of a city centre. This top thrill-seekers’ destination will make extensive use of
Oxford’s wealth of history, leaning heavily on Tolkien’s connections to the University through
Pembroke College to create an accessible and yet immersive Lord of the Rings theme which will
form a heavy part of the riders’ experiences. There is also of course Oxford’s historic connection to
thrill rides through the ever popular St Giles’ fair, which still draws thousands of visitors in its third
century of existence1.
The roller coaster itself is the world’s first flying
launched coaster, combining two popular styles for the
first time. Anticipation will build for the riders as they
move slowly through a heavily themed indoor section
of the ride, before being launched at speeds of up to
Figure 1.1.1: Launch of the Rings roller coaster
fifty miles per hour to plunge around four full
inversions and other exciting track elements. The total ride time is around sixty five seconds with
G-forces edging close to the maximum possible comfortable levels. This is a truly unique ride,
blending together the extreme thrill of a high acceleration launch with the out of this world flight
experience that can only come from swooping around corners in a flying coaster.
Of course, there is more to a project of this magnitude than simply designing an exciting
roller coaster. Such a costly enterprise needs to be able to prove that it can be a commercial
success as well as just enjoyed by its users. Over a forty year lifetime this roller coaster is
anticipated to generate returns of twenty four million pounds or more with an annual turnover of
two million pounds per annum once it is up and running. It is expected that almost seven hundred
1
www.headington.org.uk/oxon/stgiles/fair/ - Accessed April 2012
Page 4
thousand thrill seekers will ride the roller coaster each year. In the context of this high profitability,
the initial costs of construction should be easily raised through loans from both banks and other
organisations.
The benefits of the roller coaster will also be spread far more widely than just to the riders
and owners. The ride could easily become the cornerstone of the redevelopment of Oxford’s West
End, fitting ideally with the West End Area Action Plan, Oxford City Council’s development
proposals for this area of the city. There will be major benefits to the area from the extra visitors the
ride will draw, particularly given the huge effort which has been invested in ensuring that any
negative consequences of the development are as minimal as possible. The proposals comply fully
with the ‘triple bottom line’ theory of sustainability, meaning that social, economic and
environmental sustainability have all been carefully considered and acted upon during the process
of producing the best possible roller coaster option. Furthermore, much work has focussed on
ensuring the construction of Launch of the Rings results in as unnoticeable a level of disruption as
possible.
In this report we present our exciting vision for the roller coaster development. Our final
design is showcased with thorough analysis of the various elements included and explanation of
why riders will love them. Next, some further detail on specific aspects of the ride, from the flying
aspect to the revolutionary magnetic braking technology to the optimised control and wheels.
There is a detailed analysis showing how the roller coaster will stand up and make it round the
track covering every technical aspect from foundations to loop design. This is followed by
information on the important construction phase, with explanations of how disruption will be
minimised as well as the methods to be used. Environmental, sustainability and area
considerations are also discussed in detail demonstrating how we have truly engaged with the
specifics of where our coaster fits into the Oxford landscape. Safety is of course of utmost
importance, and we have taken the time to show how we will ensure that the ride remains free of
any major accidents throughout its lifetime. The report then details how the Lord of the Rings
theme is developed into not just into the ride itself but all around the area it is set. Finally, there is a
section of commercial analysis confirming the customer numbers and profits previously set out.
William Hancock
Page 5
1.2: Site Description
Area of site: 18,900m2 Perimeter of site2: 750m
Figure 1.2.1: Maps of site from Google maps and digimap.com
On 15th October a preliminary research visit was conducted to look at and to analyse the
site of the proposed rollercoaster. This was important as it allowed potential problems and
constraints of the site to be highlighted. At the time of the visit Oxpen’s meadow was being used as
a recreational area by people playing Frisbee and other sports. Most obviously there was a hot air
balloon being launched from the meadow3. Walking along Dale Close, which is in the residential
area that can be seen in figure 1.2.1; it was easy to see that many of the houses had invested in
flood defences. One example is a removable watertight gate (figure 1.2.3) which fits in between the
wall so protecting the house. This gives a reason to expect a high flood risk to the area as
residents have invested in protection. This suggests that this is likely to be a significant issue.
Figure 1.2.2 map to the left was created to
show the contours of the site. This is particularly
important as it illustrates which part of the site is the
lowest lying hence most likely to flood. Data points
were taken across the site of the height in metres
above ordinance datum. Using the data, contour lines
were drawn linking parts of the site of similar height.
Figure 1.2.2: Height contours of site
2
3
Averaged from two sources; freemaptools.com and mapdevelopers.com – Accessed 12-2011
Virgin Hot Air Balloon Rides launch from Oxpen’s Meadow virginballoonflights.co.uk
William Hancock
Page 6
There was also a small line of trees between the houses and the meadow. This would have
been planted to give privacy to the houses and to reduce any noise from activities on the meadow
disturbing the residents. There was at least one house that had invested in mounting photo-voltaic
cells on its roof. This suggests the potential for energy production from solar PV cells.
Figure 1.2.3: 1) Hot air balloon
2) Solar PV Panels
3) Flood defence
One of the most notable businesses in the area is the ice rink. This is the only ice rink in the
entire Oxford area, and is adjacent to our site. This holds regular events, such as a late night disco
skate, and is a constant tourist attraction. Not far along Oxpens road, less than 100m away, there
is The Coven which is currently a night club attracting many students on nights out. There has
been an application for a sexual entertainment licence and for it to be re-opened as a ‘lap dancing
bar.4’ This could be another possible source of custom but it raises the issue of reputational risk if
the roller coaster became associated with such activities. There will be a wide range of customers
visiting the rollercoaster and it is likely some would take offence and oppose the proposed activities
at the ‘The Coven.’
The close proximity of the residential area could potentially produce problems. If the welfare
and privacy of the residents is not taken into consideration they could prove to be strong opposition
to the rollercoaster. An action group has already been set up to preserve Oxpens meadow and to
try to prohibit any development of the meadow. Throughout the planning proposal stage there will
be plenty of communication with local residents and committee of ‘Friends of Oxpens Meadow5’ to
try and reduce the possible tensions that could be created. The design will try to incorporate the
viewpoint of all effected groups to produce the solution which will be the best for everyone.
4
5
Research taken from quote from OxfordStudent newspaper Accessed 4-2012
Friends of Oxpens meadow website Accessed 12-2011
Max Jackson
Page 7
2: THE ROLLER COASTER
This section discusses the final design of the ‘Launch of the Rings’ roller coaster, as well as the
design process and decisions made that led to it.
2.1: Final Design
Figure 2.1.1: The Final Design
The ‘Launch of the Rings’ roller coaster is shown above in Figure 2.1.2 and the first thing of
note is that is be split into two distinct parts: the indoor section (Figure 2.1.2) and the outdoor
section (Figure 2.1.3). The riders begin indoors, as they follow a slow section of track inside the
building. They do this facing upwards with their backs lying parallel to the track, as a Vekoma style
loading method will be employed. This section is strongly Lord of the Ring themed, and is used to
build anticipation for the launch. At the end of the indoor segment of track, the riders are flipped
180° into the flying position and brought to a complete stop, before being launched rapidly up to
their maximum speed of 46mph, this can be seen in Figure 2.1.2. Almost immediately after this,
they complete a classic loop and cobra roll in quick succession which, especially in the flying
position, will produce a completely unique sensation in the roller coaster world. After this, a 540°
Figure 2.1.2: The Indoor Section
Figure 2.1.3: The Outdoor Section
Max Jackson
Page 8
helix turn is used, followed directly by a tight, overbanked turn in the opposite direction. The riders
are then subjected to a small drop leading into a corkscrew to produce one final thrill before the
ride comes to an end, as can be seen in figure 2.1.3.
The roller coaster lasts a total of 64 seconds, with both the indoor and outdoor sections
taking roughly the same amount of time to complete, which is useful in regards to the control of the
system. The maximum G-force experienced by the riders is 4.17G in the positive vertical direction,
which is both comfortable and safe, despite being thrilling for the riders. The maximum G-forces in
the negative vertical and lateral direction are 0.7G and 1.7G respectively, which again are well with
the comfortable region.
The ride is a flying coaster, which means that the riders are in the prone position for the
entirety of the ride, in order to simulate the experience of flight. It relies on a launched mechanism
to start it, which when combined with the flying style, makes it the only roller coaster of its type in
existence, which will be a real selling point.
2.2: Elements
In the final design of the roller coaster, four different roller coaster elements have been
utilised. These are the traditional loop, the cobra roll, the helix and finally the corkscrew, in that
order. It is now important to look in more detail at each of these, and the reasons for selecting
these four in particular out of the many available options.
2.2.1 Loop
The first element in our ride is the loop, which is
the most widely used element in steel, inverted
coasters. It is essentially a section of continuously
upwards sloping track which continues until a full 360°
turn has been completed.
Figure 2.2.1: The Clothoid loop
However, most of these loops are not circular in
Max Jackson
Page 9
shape, but instead are in the form of a tear drop, as visible in Figure 2.2.1 . The names of loops
1
this shape are clothoid loops, and they are used to reduce the G-forces acting upon the rider2.
Although this could be seen to be counterintuitive given normal roller coaster design, it allows more
speed to be carried into, and thus out of, the loop, without danger to the passenger. A more
detailed analysis of this shape can be found in Section 4.5. Here the train decelerates to its slowest
point at the top of the loop, before it begins to accelerate under gravity for the second half of the
loop.
The reason the loop was selected was for its simplicity and traditional, iconic looks. It is a
well-revered element in many successful roller coasters, and when combined with the flying
position of the riders and its close proximity to the initial launch, the feeling of flight given by this
section will be extremely exhilarating.
2.2.2 Cobra Roll
The next element in our roller coaster is the cobra roll. This gets its name from the fact that
the shape of the element resembles closely the head of a hooded cobra. This element can be
broken up into four distinct parts. Firstly, the passengers begin with a continuously upwards sloping
track, as with the loop. This continues until the riders have been fully inverted (or half a loop has
been completed). They then perform half a corkscrew in order to leave them back in the upright
direction but travelling perpendicular to the direction in which they approached the cobra roll. Next,
follows another half corkscrew, but this time in the opposite direction, inverting the riders for a
second time. Finally, the passengers traverse another half loop to leave them at ground level,
travelling parallel to the way in which they approached the cobra roll, but in the opposite direction3.
One reason for choosing the cobra roll to be used in the design is that it is an extremely
exciting element, and due to the double inversion also has the capacity to disorientate the riders.
Furthermore, it has a very impressive presence and will be visible from afar, allowing it to draw in
customers to the ride.
1
Image from www.dmcinfo.com accessed 4/2012
www.physicsclassroom.com accessed 4/2012
3
www.snowboardcoaster.2ofc.com accessed 4/2012
2
Max Jackson
Page 10
2.2.3 Helix
The next element used is the helix turn. These are closely related to banked turns, where the
riders are tilted through an angle of up to 90° during corners, in order to convert the lateral Gforces which would result from an unbanked turn into a positive-vertical G-force. This is important
as the human body’s comfort and pain thresholds for force in the positive-vertical direction are
much greater than in both the lateral and negative-vertical directions. The result of this is that turns
can be taken at much greater speeds without discomfort to the riders.
A helix turn is simply a banked turn which forms a radius of 360° or more. It is a spiral section
and can either be upwards or downwards sloping, so that after a full rotation the passengers will
either be some distance above, or some distance below where they began the turn4.
A turn of 540° has been selected for use in our design; this is because the nature of the helix
means that the result is very compact, providing lots of excitement and thrill in a relatively small
area. This is extremely important given the small plot of land with which we are dealing and the
necessity to make a ride that competes with the best rides in the world in all aspects, including the
total duration.
2.2.4 Corkscrew
The final element selected for the design is the corkscrew, which gets its name from its close
resemblance to a kitchen corkscrew. The corkscrew very much resembles a small loop which has
been stretched perpendicular to the direction of the loop. The result of this is that the start and
finish of the element are no longer very close to one another, as with a loop, and the inverted
section of the element is no longer parallel to the direction of travel. Instead, the inverted section is
perpendicular to the direction of the entrance to the element. Corkscrews are usually found in
pairs, either directly one after the other or interlocking from two distinct sections of track, however
due to the size restrictions on our roller coaster, it was not possible to feature this in our design. A
benefit of the corkscrew design is that they can be very small in size, and as a result of this
possess the ability to invert the riders without needing a lot of speed. For this reason, as in our
design, they are often found towards the end of rides.
4
www.themeparks.about.com accessed 4/2012
Max Jackson
Page 11
The corkscrew was selected for its high thrill to size ratio and the fact that it does not require
a great deal of speed to be completed, allowing it to be placed at the end of our ride to provide a
final burst of excitement.
2.3: Design Iteration
Initially, in order to get a better grasp of roller coaster design, the relatively basic NoLimits
editor was used to create ten initial designs. However due to the limitations of the program, in
particular the inability to save and the lack of useful information given, it has been decided that
Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 will be used in the analysis of the designs instead. Although it is a game,
rather than a specific simulator, the roller coaster design features and useful information that can
be gathered from it are very impressive.
For any given design, RCT3 allows the user to view the maximum and average speeds, the
total ride time and length, the G-forces felt by riders in the positive vertical, negative vertical and
lateral directions, as well as more option based values such as the excitement, intensity and
nausea rating, in order to give an idea of how popular the ride will be with the passengers. These
values allowed each of the designs made to be compared to the best roller coasters in the world, in
order to ensure they will be able to compete and even surpass them.
The design process, as with most roller coasters across the world, is an iterative one, with
each new design addressing problems with the last. In order to begin the process, three very
different initial designs were created. Then looking at the problems that had arisen from these
three rides, a fourth design was created, and again this was modified to correct any problems,
leading to a fifth design. Eventually a final design was reached, which addressed every issue with
the previous designs and was felt to be the best
roller coaster that could be built on the plot of land
specified, in terms of not only excitement and its
ability to draw in riders, but also its environmental
and social impact.
2.3.1 Initial design 1
This design features a launched start,
Figure 2.3 1 Initial Design 1
Max Jackson
Page 12
accelerating the riders up to 44mph, which immediately leads into a small camelback hill. This is
then followed by two consecutive corkscrews and two consecutive overbanked turns. Next there is
an unbanked turn, followed by a single roll. The remainder of the track is made up of small
unbanked turns. This design has the benefit of leaving lots of open space to be enjoyed as a park,
by the public. This is especially useful given the fact that it is an SR.5 Protected open space. This
ride is relatively small in size, especially when compared to some of the best rides, with which we
are trying to compete. At just 25 seconds long, and 1119ft it length it falls short of any of the rides
in the top five, and could leave the passengers feeling dissatisfied with the amount of ride time
they received for their money. Furthermore all the flat turns produce very high lateral G-forces
(2.7G) on the passengers, which are well outside the comfortable region for the human body. On
the other hand. the positive and negative vertical G-forces are within acceptable limits at 4.3G and
1.0G respectively.
This design features the same 44mph
launch and immediately after being launched the
passengers perform a roll, around the axis of the
track. They then complete one and a half
corkscrews before a half roll is used to return the
passengers to the upright position, although at a
Figure 2.3.3: Initial Design 2
higher elevation than before. The riders then
complete a 90° unbanked turn before a small drop and corkscrew in quick succession. The
remainder of the track is made up of small unbanked turns, as in Initial Design 1. It has further
similarities with Initial Design 1, for example the large open space in the centre of the ride is an
environmental and social positive. It, too, is a very short roller coaster, even shorter than the
previous design, at just 740ft in length and taking a total of 17 seconds to complete. This is far too
short to compete with the best roller coasters and in the final design steps must be taken to ensure
the ride is of suitable time, despite the relatively small plot of land on which it is to be built. The
Max Jackson
Page 13
lateral G-forces are again much too high, at 2.3G, due to the fast, unbanked turns that are present
in the design and both the vertical G-forces are in the comfortable region.
The third design launches the passengers
at a slightly higher speed of 54mph, in order to
give the carts enough speed to complete the
course. It begins with a cobra roll, which has the
effect of disorientating the riders from the start,
and is directly followed by a classic loop. This
loop then leads into a corkscrew and finally a
Figure 2.3.4: Initial Design 3
large, overbanked turn to really give the feeling of
flight to the passengers. As with the previous two designs the ride is then completed by several
unbanked turns. Due to the combination of the slightly faster launch speed and cobra roll, the
positive vertical G-forces reach a maximum value of 5.24G which is not only uncomfortable, but
also unsafe. Again, as with previous designs, the lateral G-forces are also too large, at 2.72G. The
length of the ride is again an issue in this design, taking just 19 seconds to complete, which is far
too short. The final and most important problem with the design is the Carfax Height limit of 18.2m,
which is spoken about in more detail in section 6.6, is broken. The large, overbanked turn reaches
a maximum height of 20.42m and this means that it would not be possible to construct this design
within 1.2km of Oxford city centre.
From the three initial designs, it is clear to see that there are some common problems
arising. Firstly, although all three of the designs fit comfortably within the specified boundaries, as
set out by the plot of land itself, they do not make effective use of the space, leading to very short
rides. All three of the designs roughly follow the shape of an oval, leaving green space in the
centre to be enjoyed by the public. While this has several positive outcomes, it also means that the
ride is far too short to be taken seriously as a contender for one of the best rides in the world. The
ride should be made to conform more to the irregular shape of the plot, and to be more convoluted
in design.
Max Jackson
Page 14
Furthermore all of the design received high ratings for both intensity (7.0-7.5) and nausea
(5.5-6), and this is something that has to be addressed in future designs. These rating are
calculated by the simulation, in order to predict how enjoyable the ride will be for the passengers.
Despite the fact that these high ratings could draw in roller coaster enthusiasts from around the
world, to experience what would be one of the world’s most thrilling rides, this would be far
outweighed by the number of potential customers that would be put off by them.
2.3.4 Design 4
This design features a 46mph launch,
which
leads
into
the
classic
loop,
then
immediately the cobra roll. This combination is
very effective in creating an exciting ride and
disorientating riders. Next, two 180° banked turns
are used to make more effective use of the area
of land. A cobra roll followed by several
Figure 2.3.5: Design 4
sweeping, banked turns complete the ride.
This design tackles several issues that were observed in the initial designs. For example,
through drawing the perimeter and working with it to create the design, a more suitable shape for
the ride was found, that made use of the irregular shape of the boundaries. This brought the ride
time up to 33 seconds, which, although still fairly short, represents a big improvement on the initial
designs. Furthermore the intensity and nausea ratings were reduced to 6.5 and 5.3 respectively,
which means many more people would be inclined to ride it. Another positive is that the G-forces in
all three directions now fit within the acceptable range for comfort, as discussed in section 7.
There are, however, several problems with the design that need to be eliminated in the next
iteration. Firstly the launch, loop and cobra roll are all currently located along the riverbank at the
closest possible points to the houses opposite. These three elements are likely to create a great
deal of noise and so, if possible, should be placed as far away from the houses as possible, in
order to avoid any complaints. Secondly the location of the station needs to be adjusted, both for
ease of access and in order to avoid the flood plane on which it currently sits. Finally, the second
Max Jackson
Page 15
half of the ride, which is currently mundane and unexciting needs to be modified, to ensure the
riders are not allowed to feel bored whilst on the ride itself. This will have the added benefit of
increasing the length of the ride further, bringing it closer to the standard set by many of the world’s
best rides.
2.3.5 Design 5
This design is different to any
of the previous designs in that there
is now an indoor section to the track.
This indoor section runs along the
river bank and has several positive
consequences. Firstly, it keeps the
Figure 2.3.6: Design 5
noise levels to a minimum close to
the houses opposite, which will prevent any animosity between the ride owners and residents
nearby. Furthermore the slow indoor section will build anticipation for the big launch, making it
even more exciting than in previous designs. It will also give the opportunity to use props to really
enhance the Lord of the Rings theme and to tell a story to the riders, allowing them to be
transported to the scene of the film before experiencing the thrill of the ride itself. The riders will be
launched from the dark indoor section, instantaneously into a large loop. This, combined with the
fact that the riders are in the flying position, will produce a sensation that will be unmatched in the
roller coaster world.
The ride itself is very similar to Design 4, with the only difference being the indoor section.
Therefore, as expected, the G-forces in the three directions are all well within comfortable limits,
and the nausea and intensity rating are of an acceptable level. The main difference is in the time
taken for the ride to be completed. It now takes a total of 1.04 minutes, which is much more alike
the times of the leading roller coasters.
The one issue remaining is that it is unfeasible to have an indoor section of nearly 150m in
length due to the flooding problems associated with the site. A building that large on a flood plain
would mean the water has nowhere to go and this could cause severe flooding in other areas.
Max Jackson
Page 16
Furthermore, having the launch located where it is, at the place most susceptible to flooding, could
lead to serious problems. For this reason it has been decided that in the final design, which is
discussed in Section 2.1, a smaller building will be used, and the whole of the outdoor section of
track will be mirrored in its design to keep the launch as far away as possible from the flood zone.
2.4: Layouts
There are several different types of roller coaster, which can be categorised by the layout of
their track. Several different options were considered before a final decision was reached that a
simple circuit roller coaster would be the most appropriate for the Oxford site.
First the ‘Wildmouse’ style roller coaster was explored. These are rides in which the carts
seat a small number of people, generally four or fewer, and the track is made up of tight, flat turns
which are taken at relatively high speeds to create very high lateral G-forces5. These rides induce
fear through giving the impression of danger. They achieve this using random banking of the track,
using cars that are wider than the track itself and in some cases even using spinning cars. Despite
the fact that they are cheap and do not take up much room, this style would be inappropriate for
use in our case due to the relatively low throughput and the large number of accidents in recent
years6.
The next option considered was the Duelling Roller Coaster. This type of roller coaster
consists of two or more sections of track which in some way or another interact and can be split
into three separate categories. Firstly, there is the traditional Duelling Roller Coaster. This is where
two or more separate, but similar rides are built close to one another, intertwining and navigating
near misses in order to heighten the sense of fear and danger for the riders. Next, there is the
Racing Coaster, for which riders follow very similar tracks close to one another (often as close as a
few feet, allowing riders to reach out and touch riders on the other track), this simulates the
adrenaline filled thrill of a race. Finally, there are the Mobius Loop Roller Coasters. These can have
the design of either a duelling or racing ride, but with the unique feature that there is only one,
continuous loop of track, allowing passengers to experience both halves of the duelling ride. The
5
6
www.thecoastercritic.com accessed 4/2012
Examples of accidents from www.news.bbc.co.uk, www.foxnews.com and www.orlandosentinel.com
Max Jackson
Page 17
manner in which they do this is relatively straightforward and identical to the method used in
Scalextrix with a crossover section of track7. Due to the size constraints on our plot, and the
reasonably low throughput needed for our ride to operate at maximum capacity, it would be both
unfeasible and unnecessary to try and introduce a ride of this nature to Oxford.
The next layout to be considered was the Dive Roller Coaster, in which riders are transported
up a lift hill before completing a slow, near horizontal section of track, and finally executing a
vertical or near vertical drop8. The carriages involved in the style of ride are generally two or three
rows deep, with each row seating between six and ten people. In order to ensure that all the riders
have the chance to take in the views around them and get an understanding of the magnitude of
the drop, stadium seating is often employed (where the rear seats are raised above the front ones).
Due to the height constraint of 18.2m and the inability to dig underground because of the flood
risks, it would be impossible to create an effective dive roller coaster in our plot.
Terrain Roller Coasters were also investigated. These are rides which take advantage of
either the natural undulations of the land on which they are built, or manmade hills, remaining close
to the ground at all times and using conforming to the shape of the land9. This reduces the costs
involved in building the ride as much smaller support structures are needed. However, as our plot
is far too flat to be used in this type of ride, and the floodplain on which it sits inhibits any major
landscape changes, this ride too would be unfeasible.
Out and back roller coasters were also considered. These are rides where the cart climbs a
large lift hill before racing in a near straight line to the far end of track, navigating several
camelback hills, before performing a 180° turn and returning in another straight line, this time with
several smaller hills10. This style of ride is very easy to design and construct, and as a
consequence of this is very cheap, relative to other layouts. However, due to the long narrow area
of land and tall hills needed, it would not be possible to design a track with this layout.
Shuttle roller coasters are rides where the track does not form a complete circuit, but rather
completes a section of track before reversing at a given point, and traversing the same section of
7
www.rcdb.com accessed 4/2012
www.bolliger-mabillard.com accessed 4/2012
9
10
www.theultimaterollercoaster.com accessed 4/2012
8
Max Jackson
Page 18
track in the reverse direction . While these rides can be extremely small and compact, due to the
11
fact that the cart uses each part of the track twice per run, they also have some drawbacks. For
example, due to the fact that this type of ride relies on gravity, both to slow the carts to a stop and
then to reverse their direction, a large upwards sloping section of track is needed. Another tall,
sloping piece of track is needed at the start of the ride. However, because of the 18.2m height limit
in place neither of these would be possible on our site.
Having exhausted all the other possibilities for an appropriate track layout, for one reason or
another, the only remaining option is the simple circuit roller coaster. This is by far the most
common layout for roller coasters and that, it appears, lies in its adaptability. This style of roller
coaster can come in a great range of sizes and shapes, from the small fairground rides aimed at
younger children all the way up to the giant Hulk ride at Universal Studios. There are many
different styles of roller coaster with this layout, but ultimately all share the same simple premise;
they follow a single track, and finish at near enough the same point that they began. Using this
layout will enable the most efficient use of our small area of land, thanks to the ability to create tight
convoluted shapes. Furthermore, it will allow us to use a launched start rather than a lift-hill, in
order to ensure we remain below the 18.2m height limit at all times. Finally, the possibility of having
several cars on the track at the same time means that there will be no issues in terms of
throughput at peak times throughout the year.
2.5: Competition
The aim of the Oxford roller coaster is to be able to compete with the best rides in the UK,
and even the world. In order to do this it is useful to compare our ride to the top-ranked rides
currently in the UK for a number of properties. Below is a table of statistics12 for what are often
agreed to be the top five rides13.
First, it is worth noting that all the rides in the top five are inverting, steel roller coasters. This
highlights the importance of our decision with regards to what material should be used and the
11
www.en.wikipedia.org accessed 4/2012
All statistics from www.rcdb.com accessed 4/2012
13
According to The Ride Guide Forum Poll
12
Max Jackson
Page 19
Name
Nemesis
Stealth
Oblivion
Shockwave
Swarm
Cost
£10,000,000
£17,000,000
£12,000,000
£4,000,000
£20,000,000
Time to Build
3 years
6 months
14 months
2 years
1 year
Mechanism
Chain lift
Launched
Chain lift
Chain lift
Chain lift
Length
2,349ft
1,312ft
1,223ft
1,640ft
2,543ft
Height
180ft
203ft
197ft
80ft
128ft
Max Speed
50mph
80mph
70mph
53mph
57mph
Duration
1min20s
0min28s
2min40s
1min36s
1min21
G-force
4G
4,5G
4.5G
4G
4.7G
Table 2.5.1: Statistics for Top Five Rides in the UK
superiority of steel in this respect. Furthermore, it is also important to note that each of these rides
has a feature that makes them completely unique. Nemesis was the first inverted coaster in the
world, Stealth the fastest ride in Europe, Oblivion had the world’s first vertical drop, Shockwave
was the world’s first stand-up coaster and Swarm is Europe’s only winged roller coaster. In light of
this, the decision to make our ride the world’s first launched, flying coaster appears to have been a
very positive one.
When comparing our ride with the top five UK rides, several other positives come to light. For
example, with a total cost of £6.82 million our ride is towards the lower end of the spectrum, and
some way below the average cost of £12.6million. This is both an expected and pleasing result.
Due to the fact that the ride will not be built to be part of a large park, but instead as an individual
attraction, the budget for the ride will of course be less. This is due to the higher risk involved in
creating a single ride, arising from the fact that if the ride is not popular, the owner does not have
other rides to continue making an income. The lower cost means a greater profit is possible, which
is the aim of building the ride in the first place.
In terms of time taken to build, our ride is expected to take roughly one year, but this is very
susceptible to change, given the uncertainties involved with every aspect of the design and
construction process. This falls roughly in the middle of the competition, and as the average
amount of time is 1.5 years, this too is a positive result.
Next it is important to look at the length and duration of our ride, as they are key to ensuring
the riders feel satisfied with the amount of enjoyment they received for their payment. Our ride is a
Max Jackson
Page 20
total of 2258ft, which is some way above the mean of 1813ft, despite being almost the central
value. This is another positive result, especially given the relatively small plot of land on which it is
to be built. This is due to the use of the long, 540° Helix turn and other compact elements. In terms
of duration, at 1min4s, our ride sits slightly lower in relation to the competition, but is close to the
average of 1min19s. The reason for the discrepancy between length and duration comes from the
fact that our ride does not employ a slow chain lift hill, but rather a launch mechanism. When
compared with Stealth, the other Launched Roller Coaster in the top five, our ride lasts almost
double the amount of time and so will be more than satisfactory for the customers.
Another positive consequence of using the launched start in our design is in the vastly
reduced height of the roller coaster. Our ride reaches a maximum height of 18m (20cm shy of the
Carfax Height limit of 18.2m), whereas the average height of the other five is more than double that
value, at 157.6ft. The reason for stealth being so tall, despite it being a launched roller coaster, is
that it relies on its height to scare the passengers, whereas we utilise a more exciting, inverting
design to achieve the same.
The maximum speed of our design is 46mph, which is the slowest out of all the rides in the
top five, and far below the 62mph average. While this could be seen as the first real negative result
for our ride, several measures have been taken to ensure that our ride doesn’t feel slow in
comparison to the competition. The rides are launched up to their maximum speed very quickly,
having just completed a slow dark section with the aim of building anticipation for the launch. This
sudden acceleration, especially when juxtaposed with the slow indoor section will give a real sense
of speed, heightened further by the use of the 5 rings surrounding the track at the launch.
Finally, in terms of the G-forces experienced by the rider, our value of 4.17G sits roughly in
the middle, which is high enough to be very thrilling, but not too high so that it becomes
uncomfortable.
SECTION CONCLUSION
The roller coaster has been designed to compete with the very best rides currently
operating in the world, whilst complying with all the constraints set out both by nature and the law,
for example height limits, flooding risk, and noise restrictions.
Max Jackson
Page 21
3: RIDE CHARACTERISTICS
This section provides a much more in depth look into the ‘Launch of the Rings’ ride, covering
all technical aspects, in order to ensure that it is a safe, exciting and well functioning ride.
3.1: Flying Coaster
After discussing the many different styles of roller coaster that could be built in Oxford, the
decision was narrowed down to two options: 4D or flying. These two were chosen because in order
to compete with the best roller coasters in the world, given the size constraints present, the ride
would need to be extremely unique and exciting in order to draw in customers. With just 4 flying
coasters in Europe and 6 4D coasters in the world 1, these two styles would do just that.
A 4th Dimension roller coaster is one where the passengers are free to rotate on a horizontal
axis, perpendicular to the track. This gives an added sense of uncertainty and heightens
adrenaline for the riders. There are two types of 4D roller coasters, the Arrow Dynamics and
Intamin designs. The main difference between the two is that the Intamin design relies on an
uncontrolled rotation of the carts, which leads to a completely unique ride each time 2. The Arrow
Dynamics design, on the other hand, uses an intelligent, fourrail system in order to control the rotation of the cart. Two of
the rails are used, as in any roller coaster, for the carriages to
travel along, and the other two, known as ‘X-Rails’ to control
the spin of the carts, using a rack and pinion gear
mechanism3. 4D roller coasters are almost always designed
with no lateral movements at all, i.e the track is built in a 2D
plane, which leads to very tall structures, as can be seen in
Figure 3.1.14.
This is a big problem due to the 18.2m
Figure 3.1.1: Example of a 4D ride: Kimu
Carfax height limit, and so this style of roller coaster, although unique, would not be suitable for our
plot.
1
Roller Coaster Database Census (www.rcdb.com ) accessed 4/2012
www.itaminworldwide.com accessed 4/2012
3
www.engineeringexcitement.com
4
Image from www.itaminworldwide.com accessed 4/2012
2
Max Jackson
Page 22
Instead, it has been decided that a flying roller coaster will be designed. Clearly, a flying roller
coaster is a ride built to simulate the sensation of flight. It does this through keeping riders in the
prone position, with their backs to the track for its entirety. While there are currently 4 rides of this
style in Europe, when combined with the ‘launched start’, rather than, for example, a ‘chain lift hill’
it becomes the only ride of its kind in the world 5. This uniqueness would be a huge selling point for
our ride, drawing in enthusiasts from all over to experience this one of a kind ride. As with the 4D
roller coaster, there are two main, and very different, styles of flying coaster. These will be explored
in more detail in the next section.
3.2: Patents
For the flying roller coaster, there are currently several patents in existence which concern:
how the passengers are loaded, how the carts are attached
to the track, the loading mechanism, the restraint mechanism
and any unique features6. In this section, the two main styles
of flying coaster, Vekoma and Bollinger & Mabillard (B+M),
will be investigated (ignoring the much smaller and lesser
known Zamperta style). Vekoma are responsible for the most
iconic and well known flying roller coaster, called the Flying
Dutchman, as well as a smaller ride, called the Firehawk.
B+M, on the other hand are known for creating several
identical Superman rides for use
Figure 3.2.1: B+M Loading Method
by Six Flags, Tatsu ( the tallest, longest and fastest flying coaster in the
world), Air ( the only UK flying coaster) and several others.
By far the most important difference between the two styles is the
loading mechanism, which will be the basis for our decision. For B+M
flying coasters, generally, the riders sit in the carriage in the same way
Figure 3.2.2: B+M Loading Method II
5
Roller Coaster Database Census (www.rcdb.com ) accessed 4/2012
All images and reference to patents in this section can be found on the United States patent and Trademark
Office (www.patft.uspto.gov) accessed 4/2012
6
Max Jackson
Page 23
they would any inverted roller coaster (where the carriage sits below the track) as shown in Figure
3.2.1. Each row is then hydraulically lifted, pivoting about the point where the top of the seats
meets the track, in order to position the riders with their backs parallel to the track, in the flying
position. The carriages are then released from the station
to begin the ride. B+M also have a second loading method
under patent and although it has not been used on a roller
coaster to date, we feel it could be a possibility to use this
method in our design. Here the carriage performs a 90°
turn around the axis of track, before entering the station, so
Figure 3.2.3: Vekoma 180° Rotation
that it is on its side, ready to be loaded. The seats are then rotated 90° into an upright position as
shown in Figure 3.2 2 and the passengers are allowed to load. The seats then rotate 90° in the
opposite direction in order to line up the passengers back with the track, and the cart is allowed to
leave the station. This loading method is very complex, and relies on an electric motor and rotating
ring design.
The Vekoma loading mechanism is far simpler than the two B+M designs, and as a
consequence, cheaper too. Here the passengers load the train in an upright seated position, as
they would any traditional roller coaster, however they will be facing the rear of the carriage. The
riders are then lowered backwards until their backs are parallel with the track, as in Figure 3.2.4.
Generally with Vekoma rides, the passengers are kept in this position whilst they climb the lift hill,
then, soon after they reach the top, they are rotated 180° around the track into the flying position to
complete the entire circuit. Just before the riders reach the braking section of the track, in order to
enter the station, they are flipped a second time to be facing upwards. This allows them to be
unloaded in a similar manner to how they were loaded.
Due
simplicity
design,
to
the
of
the
the
lower
costs involved and the
Figure 3.2.4: Vekoma Loading Method
benefit of having the
Max Jackson
Page 24
passengers facing upwards for the initial section of track, as discussed in more detail in the next
section, it has been decided that a Vekoma loading style will be used. Instead of simply adapting
their design to fit our needs, the design of the carts loading mechanism will be outsourced to
Vekoma themselves, as this will reduce costs and benefit from their many years of experience.
Finally, it is worth noting that a 3-restraint harness will be employed for safety purposes. Here the
riders will be clamped at their shoulders, hips and ankles, as is common with flying roller coasters,
due to the higher negative-vertical G-forces experienced during this type of ride.
3.3: Loading Method
A Vekoma method of launching has been selected for use on the ride. As seen in the
previous section, this is where the passengers load facing the back of the cart. The harnesses are
then lowered and the riders are rotated backwards, until their backs lie parallel to the track. The
cart then generally traverses a small section of track or climbs the lift hill in this position before it is
rotated 180° around the track to place the
riders in the flying position.
This method, however, is being modified
in order to benefit the ride. In our ride the
passengers start the loading process as
normal, entering facing the rear of the cart and
being lowered onto their backs. They will then
complete a dark, strongly themed indoor
Figure 3.3.1: Indoor Section of Track to Show Location of
180° Rotation
section of track. Here they will experience some of the Lord of the Rings journey first hand and
learn more about the journey of Bilbo Baggins. This section will transport riders to a parallel world
and build anticipation for the big launch out of
the darkness, of the indoor section.
This initial section of track will rely solely
on gravity, rather than any chain or pulley
systems, for the cart to traverse it. The entire
section will be at a slight decline, and for this
Figure 3.3.2: Indoor Section of Track to Show Incline of Track
Max Jackson
Page 25
reason the loading station will have to be relatively tall (this has the bonus of creating a smaller,
denser queue, leaving more open greenery to be enjoyed by the public). The kicker wheel used to
roll the cart into the station, and stop it in position, will also be used to start the cart on this section.
As the riders are on their backs, facing upwards for this initial section, there will be lots of
space above the track to design an effective attraction which is both aesthetically pleasing and
exciting in nature.
3.4: Cart Design
3.4.1 Colours
The two colours selected for use on the roller coaster cart are black and gold. These
colours are not only an aesthetically pleasing pair, which complement each other well, but also link
in well with the Lord of the Rings theme. The carts will be gold and the track painted black. The
carts will be used to symbolise the gold ring from the film, and track to symbolise the dark,
dangerous path to Mordor. The dark track also provides the added benefit of not drawing attention
away from the fantastic Oxford skyline. The ride is intended to harmonise with the beauty of
Oxford, and a garish, bright roller coaster (as so many are) would simply not fit in and could
actually detract from the allure of the ride.
3.2.1 Layout
As section 3.5, it has been found that only four riders are needed on each carriage in order to
fulfil the maximum required throughput, at the peak of summer, of 250 people per hour. In light of
this our carts have been designed to seat the minimum of four, as anymore would be
uneconomical. Instead of the conventional 2x2 layout employed in almost all 4 seat carts, it has
been decided to sit the four passengers in a single row. This will allow all the passengers to
experience the highly desirable ‘front row ride’. Everyone will have the best seat available and be
able to enjoy the thrills and views of Oxford that accompany it.
3.4.3 Theme
As well as employing the Lord of the Rings
colours in the design, the single row layout has
allowed us to stamp the acronym L.O.T.R across the
four seats. This will ensure that the theme is not lost
on the rider and further enhance the experience.
Figure 3.4 1 Final Cart Design
Page 26
3.5: Throughput
The commercial model predicts that at peak times a maximum of 240 people per hour will ride
our roller coaster. This is a throughput of significantly less than most existing roller coasters, for
example the eleven roller coasters at Thorpe Park and Alton Towers all have throughputs of
between 1000 and 2000 passengers per hour78. This enables smaller individual carts to be used
rather than full trains, a technique that has been used before on a launched roller coaster by the
manufacturer Gerstlauer on Lynet, a roller coaster at Fårup Sommerland in Denmark 9. The smaller
vehicles are able to be accelerated over a lesser distance, a huge advantage on such a
constrained site. The proposal is to have one row of four seats in each cart, allowing all riders to
get the most sought after ‘front seat’ experience.
With four people per cart, to achieve the predicted maximum throughput of 240 people per hour
one cart will have to be dispatched every minute. The track can be broken down into three
sections, the indoor section, outdoor section and station. A cart takes seventy seconds to complete
an entire lap of the circuit, with the indoor and outdoor sections taking around thirty five seconds
each. It is perfectly safe to have one train running in the indoor section and one in the outdoor
section simultaneously, as the ride will be programmed to prevent launch out of the indoor section
until the previous train has cleared the outdoor section. It is also perfectly acceptable to have
multiple cars in the brake run and station
area,
as
cars
here
are
individually
controlled by kicker wheels. These are
wheels in the track touching the base of the
cars, moving them slowly forwards as they
turn. Also, the cars will be travelling at such
low speeds here that any collision that did
occur would have no consequence beyond
a small jolt for the riders.
7
Figure 3.3.1: Indoor, outdoor and station sections
www.thorpepark.com/downloads/press/THORPE-PARK-Press-Pack-2012.pdf - Accessed March 2012
www.rcdb.com – Accessed March 2012
9
http://www.gerstlauer-rides.de – Accessed January 2012
8
Page 27
Throughput can be fulfilled using only two carts if they can consistently be unloaded, loaded
and dispatched in 50 seconds. This is shown in Table 3.3.2.
Time
Station
0s – 10s
Indoor Section
Outdoor Section
X1
X2
10s – 35s
X2
X1
35s – 60s
X2
X1
X1
X2
X1
60s – 70s
Table 3.3.2: Two cart system. Each ‘X’ represents a cart, underlining represents loading.
An alternative method of achieving the throughput using three cars allows more loading time
per car and is shown in Table 3.3.3. This system still launches a car every 60 seconds but also
allows 60 seconds unloading, loading and dispatching time. The downside is that passengers are
required to sit waiting in the cart in the station for up to 50 seconds after the ride. There are also
extra costs associated with running an additional cart, but these are minimal.
Time
Indoor Section
Outdoor Section
X1
X2
X3
10s – 35s
X3 X1
X2
35s – 60s
X3 X1
X1
X2
60s – 70s
X3
X1
X2
0s – 10s
Station
Table 3.3.3: Three cart system. Each ‘X’ represents a cart, underlining represents loading.
If even this system does not provide enough loading time, a final option exists which involves
four carts, two of them loading at a time. This allows a loading time of up to 120 seconds and is
shown in Table 3.3.4. The maximum waiting time after the ride is maintained at fifty seconds. Extra
costs are those associated with a fourth car, as well as a bigger station area to allow the loading of
two carts at once.
Page 28
Time
Station
Indoor Section
0s – 35s
X1 X2 X3
X4
35s – 70s
X1 X2
X3
70s – 105s
105s – 120s
120s – 155s
X4 X1 X2
Outdoor Section
X4
X3
X3 X4 X1 X2
X3 X4 X1
X2
Table 3.3.4: Four cart system. Each ‘X’ represents a cart, underlining represents loading.
At Thorpe Park at peak times staff working on the two roller coasters Colossus and Nemesis
Inferno have a target to launch the coaster within forty seconds of stopping it after the previous
ride. This is considered an ambitious target and is not consistently met. Launch of the Rings has
the advantage over these two that only four or eight riders need to be changed over as opposed to
the twenty eight of Colossus or Nemesis Inferno10. On the other hand, there may be extra time
costs associated with the more complicated restraint system of a flying roller coaster. For example
on Air at Alton Towers restraints very often need to be locked a second time or do not unlock
successfully without attention from a member of ride staff. The Vekoma flying roller coaster design
does have the loading time advantage of performing the change to prone position after leaving the
station whilst the ride is in operation as opposed to some other designs such as B&M’s 11.
It seems likely that fifty seconds will not be long enough to be able to consistently unload, load
and dispatch. Sixty seconds is significantly more feasible, and the full hundred and twenty seconds
of the four cart system will definitely be possible. It is therefore necessary to ensure there are
sufficient vehicles to be able to run this system, potentially also allowing expected maximum
throughput to be exceeded. Which system is used will depend on experience gained ‘on the
ground’ of how quickly the trains can realistically be loaded. The aim will be to use as few cars as
possible given throughput. Clearly for the majority of time for which the ride is running it will not be
at maximum capacity and so the two car system can be used with greater loading times.
10
11
www.thorpepark.com/downloads/press/THORPE-PARK-Press-Pack-2012.pdf - Accessed March 2012
www.vekoma.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=19 - Accessed March 2012
Page 29
3.6: Cart Details
As explained in section 3.2 Vekoma has been chosen as our cart manufacturer, enabling their
patented loading mechanism to be used. All previous Vekoma flying coasters have used full trains
rather than the shorter four person single carts to be used on Launch of the Rings. The intention is
to use a similar design to these longer trains but simply curtailed after the first passenger car. The
green box in figure 3.4.212 shows the part in question of an existing Vekoma train.
Figure 3.4.2: Firehawk at King’s Island
Figure 3.4.3: Batwing at Six Flags America
The small ‘lead car’ and associated wheels which immediately precedes the first passenger car
will be retained. As shown in Figure 3.4.1 this would be used to house the magnets required for the
launch and braking mechanisms. The lead car will be themed to the Lord of the Rings theme along
with the rest of the ride. The carts will be made primarily from fibreglass, as is typical on modern
roller coasters to reduce weight13.
One of the most important aspects of the cart is the restraint system due to its safety
implications. This roller coaster will use the design favoured by Vekoma on a number of previous
rides consisting of an over-the-shoulder harness with additional waist and ankle restraints mounted
on a pillar hinged into the base of the car. This can be seen in detail in Figure 3.4.3 14.
The overall mass of the cart is important to bear in mind during design to ensure the train
successfully travels the whole way round the track at a sensible velocity, as well as to calibrate the
launching and braking sections correctly. Since this design is so similar to that of a typical flying
12
13
Image shown courtesy of kiextreme.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/may074-firehawk7.jpg
www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Roller-Coaster.html - Accessed March 2012.
14
Image shown courtesy of www.themeparkreview.com/forum/files/batwing_p1040804_524.jpg
Page 30
roller coaster, we can just assume our mass will be a proportion of the mass of a full train, plus
some additional mass to account for the heavy magnets we are using in our launch system. It can
also be safely assumed that the front ‘lead car’ is half the mass of the other cars as in practice it
will be significantly less than that. The typical flying roller coaster Manta at Seaworld Orlando has
an empty mass of 15000kg and is eight four person carts long 15. The shorter carts used here will
therefore have a mass of around 3000kg each.
The approximate cost of roller coaster cars varies from around $20k - $100k per cart. Since
flying roller coasters are amongst the most complicated of trains due to their extra restraints and
hydraulic mechanisms our cars will cost towards the top end of this range. Accounting for the
additional cost of the ‘lead car’ this will equate to around £65k per full cart. In section 3.5 it was
decided that five carts are needed amounting to a total cost of £400k.16
This cost has been included in the estimate of initial construction costs. However it has also
been factored in to running costs over the forty years for which the roller coaster is estimated to be
in operation, as carts only have a lifetime of around eight years and so will need to be replaced
several times.17
There will be an indoor depot for maintenance and storage of the carts when not in use. This
will be in the indoor section of the ride to avoid further impinging on the green space of the
meadow. Trains will be moved into and out of the depot through a changeable track layout and
kicker wheels as shown in Figure 3.4.4.
Station
Depot
Figure 3.4.4: Changeable track layout.
15
www.seaworld.com/sitepage.aspx?PageID=800 – Accessed March 2012
www.alibaba.com/showroom/roller-coaster-car.html - Accessed March 2012
17
Ibid.
16
Page 31
3.4.1: Stress Analysis
Figure 3.4.5: Side on view. Red indicates track, yellow is the braking fin, green the electromagnet for
launch, black the restraints and hydraulic mechanism and brown the cart body.
Most of the metal on a roller coaster car is manufactured from aluminium or steel 18. The two
parts of the cart that will be suffering the most stress that this will particularly apply to are the base
of the wheel casings, which take the whole weight of the cart, and the bar which holds the rear part
to the lead car.
The maximum positive G-force the rollercoaster experiences is 4G and the maximum negative
1.5G. One G is equivalent to 10ms -2 of acceleration. Using
we therefore find that the
maximum tensile force on wheel casing connection is 45kN, split between the lead car and the
trailing car. The maximum compressive force is 120kN again split between the two cars. Stress, σ,
is defined as
where A is the cross-sectional area of the section. This connection has been
designed with a cross-section of 50mm x 50mm giving 2500mm 2. The maximum tension in the
section will therefore be below 18MPa and the maximum compression below 48MPa.
Equally the maximum forwards acceleration suffered by the car is 6.05ms -1 and the maximum
deceleration 15ms-1. Due to the position of the electromagnet in the lead car, and the braking fin
attached to the connecting bar, both of these will cause tension, which will therefore have a
18
Scott Rutherford, The American Rollercoaster, 2nd edition, 2004, Motorbooks International, St Paul, Minn.
Page 32
maximum of 45kN. This equates to a maximum stress of 50MPa for the bar used which is 30mm x
30mm in dimension.
Due to its lighter weight than steel, it would be preferable to use aluminium for these parts.
Pure aluminium has a low yield strength, however the most commonly used aluminium alloy, 6061
has the higher yield strengths shown in Figure 3.4.6. for different tempering. It consists of between
95% and 99% aluminium alloyed with various other metals including silicon, iron, magnesium and
chromium19. Aluminium 6061-T4 can be seen to have a yield strength σy of 110MPa which is
greater than the stresses these elements of the cart will undergo. It is also highly weldable, an
important consideration for ease and cost of construction. The wheel casings and connector
between the carts will therefore be made from this alloy. The cost of Aluminium 6061-T4 is around
£2000 per metre cubed which is well within our budget for the carts 20.
The joint between each of the wheel casings and the connecting bar holding the two carts
together will be a pin type joint. This will enable each set of wheels to follow the track
independently.
Aluminium 6061-O
55MPa
Aluminium 6061-T4
110MPa
Aluminium 6061-T6
241MPa
Table 3.4.6: σy for Aluminium 6061
19
20
www.alcoa.com/adip/catalog/pdf/Extruded_Alloy_6061.pdf - Accessed April 2012
www.metalsdepot.com/products/alum2.phtml?page=square – Accessed April 2012
Page 33
3.7: Launch
Due to the eighteen metre height restriction it was quickly decided that a launch coaster was
the only way to achieve the required speeds that would make the roller coaster sufficiently thrilling
and exciting to compete with other rides on a national and global scale. The other primary
alternative, a traditional lift hill, would not be able to generate sufficient speed from such a small
height. There are four main possible methods of powering a launched roller coaster – linear
induction motors, linear synchronous motors, hydraulic or pneumatic launch 21. Linear synchronous
motors or LSM were opted for.
It was decided against linear induction motors as rides powered by this method typically have
slower acceleration, two good examples being California Screamin’ and Mr Freeze. Most
manufacturers have moved away from induction motors and towards synchronous motors in recent
years due to improved performance and cost. Fast acceleration is particularly important here due
to the small size of land available and slower acceleration meaning more space is required for the
launch to reach the same top speed.
A pneumatic launch works by compressed air. This is a fairly new technology that has only
been applied to three roller coasters before22. Its main advantage is high acceleration to the very
fastest speeds, for example the pneumatically powered Ring˚Racer under construction at the
Nürburgring reaches a top speed of 134.8mph. The downside is that costs are quite high and since
the technology has not been used on many roller coasters there is little information on likely
reliability. As our Launch of the Rings only needs to reach a top speed of around 50mph there
would be no advantage in using this launch method and the high cost and reliability uncertainties
caused it to be decided against.
Hydraulic launch roller coasters use hydraulic fluid to compress nitrogen which, when released,
powers a turbine connected to a winch which pulls the car. This system is already well used in the
UK, with Stealth at Thorpe Park and Rita: Queen of Speed at Alton Towers both using a hydraulic
launch23. The biggest problem with this method is that it is unreliable with high maintenance
21
22
23
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/physics-of-roller-coasters.html - Accessed March 2012
www.rcdb.com – Accessed January 2012
www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-03/how-it-works-worlds-fastest-rollercoaster – Accessed April 2012
Page 34
requirements and lots of down time. Additionally synchronous motors produce faster acceleration
to speeds below around 60mph and so are a better option for this roller coaster with its top speed
of only around 50mph.
3.7.1: LSM Launch
An LSM roller coaster is accelerated through magnetic interaction. There is a powerful
electromagnet mounted in the train and permanent magnets located to each side of the track. The
electromagnet is powered by a battery in the lead car which charges while the car is stopped in the
station. As shown in Figure 3.4.1 the magnets are arranged such that the North Pole of the
electromagnet in the train experiences a repulsive force in the direction of acceleration from the
North permanent magnet behind it and an attractive force from the South permanent magnet
ahead. As the train moves along the track the current powering the electromagnet is reversed
causing its poles to swap. If performed at appropriate timing intervals this will ensure that the train
is always accelerated in the correct
direction24.
This is a very reliable launch
method with lower maintenance
requirements than other systems as
there are few parts and no friction,
physical contact or moving parts.
Figure 3.4.1: Diagram of an LSM launch system. Note the
permanent magnets shown below the track rather than their
usual place to the side.
The electromagnets have quite
a large power requirement. Other
LSM roller coasters that accelerate to 50mph require a constant power input of around 120kW and
a storage system. While the roller coaster is running power is drawn at a constant 120kW and
stored before being used in a burst each time a launch takes place25.
24
25
www.unc.edu/~bhuang/lsmcoasters.htm - Accessed March 2012
www.gerstlauer-rides.de – Accessed November 2011
Page 35
3.7.2: Acceleration and Launch Length
The launch part of the track is forty metres long. Carts will stop at the start of this section to
build anticipation and so that launch can be delayed if the previous cart has not yet cleared the
next track section. This means that the launch will be required to accelerate the cart from 0 - 22ms1
. Therefore in the acceleration, velocity and displacement curves shown in Figure 3.4.2
V1  22ms 1
X 1  40m . We know that
a
dv d 2 x
and

dt dt 2
v x0
at
t 0
therefore
2
AT
V1  A1T1  22 and X 1  1 1  40 which solve to give A1  6.05ms 2 .
2
This
acceleration
is
equivalent to 0.6G, well
within the comfortable limit
for positive G forces of 4G.
Furthermore,
Figure 3.4.2: Acceleration, velocity and displacement curves against time
acceleration
is
this
easily
possible using a standard LSM launch arrangement as demonstrated below.
3.7.3: LSM Launch Acceleration
The extremely powerful neodymium type of magnet will be used for the permanent magnets.
This is the most powerful kind of permanent magnet known and has four to five times the power of
a similar ceramic magnet26. They are made of NdFeB, neodymium-iron-boron. For the purposes of
the calculation it has been assumed that grade N38 magnets will be used with dimensions of
50mm x 25.4mm x 12mm. The poles are separated by the full 50mm27.
A typical LSM launch system uses about two hundred magnets. Over a forty metre section of
launch track this is equivalent to one every 200mm. The electromagnet in the cart has length
exactly equal to the gap between two poles and so will also have length of 200mm. An
26
27
www.wondermagnet.com/magfaq.html - Accessed March 2012
Magnet data from www.ndfeb-info.com/ndfeb_rectangular_magnets.aspx - Accessed March 2012
Page 36
electromagnet of the strength required will have similar diameter to length and so 100mm has been
used as the value for radius in the calculation.
In the calculation subscript f indicates the fixed, permanent magnets and t the electromagnet
on the train. Figure 3.4.3 shows the key magnets providing propulsion to the cart at any one time.
The magnets will be mounted in such a way as to minimise the out of line distance, the vertical
distance in the diagram, and so this can be approximated to zero. Finally, the forwards direction of
the cart is considered positive.
Figure 3.4.3: Magnet Arrangement
Using the Gilbert model28, each pole can be treated as a magnetic monopole. The total force
on each monopole can then be found from the superposition of the forces on that monopole by
each other monopole29. Each of these forces can be calculated using the equation F 
q f qt
4r 2
where μ = permittivity of air30, q = charge of monopole and r = distance. Repulsive forces will be in
the opposite direction. The total force on the roller coaster cart is equal to the force on the
electromagnet’s North monopole plus the force on the electromagnet’s South monopole.
Neglecting the effects of all but the closest two other monopoles on each monopole, and
considering that the effects of the electromagnet’s North monopole on its South monopole will be
equal and opposite and thus negated by the effects of the South monopole on the North monopole,
the total horizontal force on the cart is:
28
A L Davalos, Fundamentals of electromagnetism: vacuum electrodynamics, media and relativity, Springer,
Berlin, 1999, Section 6 Magnetic Field
29
http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth/notes/mag_basic/mag_basic.html- accessed March 2012
30
Value taken from A M Howatson et al, Engineering Tables and Data, 2009.
F
2 0 q f q t
4
Page 37
(
1
1

)
2
x
Lt  x 2
Again from Gilbert’s model31 q for each monopole can be approximated to: q 
where B0 = magnetic flux density at r=0, A = Cross sectional pole area,
2 B0 A L2  R 2
0 L
L = length of magnet
and R = radius of magnet (or approximation in the case of a cuboid magnet).
The N38 magnets chosen for the fixed magnets have the following properties 32:
B0 f  0.554T , A f  6  10 4 m 2 , L f  0.0254m 2 , R f  15  10 3 m , b  0.006m
The electromagnet has the dimensions calculated above, and the mass of the cart has been
calculated in section 3.6: Cart Details:
Lt  0.2m , Rt  0.1m , At  0.0314m 2 , mass of cart  m  3000kg .
Therefore, F  6.93B0t (
1
1
1

) . Average force =
2
2
Lt
x
0.2  x

Lt b
b
Fdx  5620 B0t N .
2
From F  ma , the acceleration of the cart will be 1.9 B0t ms .
There is one more important factor not considered. The force on the overall cart will actually be
double what is calculated here as there are two sets of magnets, one each side of the cart.
Therefore to achieve the required acceleration of 6.25ms-2 the electromagnet needs to have a
value of B0 of 1.6T.
There are a number of assumptions in this calculation which will have varying effects on the
final figure for B0. Since it is impossible in practice to have a single monopole, the permanent
magnets will have another pole which causes deceleration, as shown in Figure 3.4.3. Due to the
out of line, vertical on the figure, distance between these poles and the electromagnet they will
cause a lesser force than the magnets considered. In this calculation, the deceleration force will be
less than the acceleration force by a factor of cos(tan 1 (
0.0254
)) which approximates to total
x
acceleration around two thirds of what we have calculated. Potentially the value for B 0 could
31
32
http://instruct.tri-c.edu/fgram/web/Mdipole.htm - accessed March 2012
Magnet data from www.ndfeb-info.com/ndfeb_rectangular_magnets.aspx - Accessed March 2012
Page 38
therefore need to be around 50% greater than the calculated value. Fortunately this is in part
negated by the other major assumption which is that the magnets on one side of the car will have
no effect on the electromagnet on the other side. In practice there will be interaction between these
increasing the acceleration. Other assumptions which will have a negligible impact on the value are
the small out of line distance of the main poles discussed above, and the effects of poles further in
front and behind the car, which will for the most part cancel out.
Fortunately electromagnets do exist with B 0 values around this level. The maximum possible
magnetic flux density of an electromagnet is determined by the saturation induction of the metal
used for the core. Whilst iron has a fairly high saturation induction it is not great enough for this
purpose. Instead, we will need to use permendur, a cobalt iron alloy. This has a very high
saturation induction of 2.35T33. This is roughly the value required. Once the effects of the additional
poles described in the assumptions above is taken into account it may prove slightly too low in
practice. This should not be of concern however as we have used a very conservative estimate of
the value of B0 of our permanent magnets. By simply using a higher grade of permanent magnet
the required acceleration will be easily achieved.
There is potentially a problem with the additional mass of the electromagnet causing slower
acceleration of the train. The total volume of the two electromagnets is 6.28x10-3 metres cubed and
the density of permendur is 8200kgm-3 resulting in a total additional mass of 52kg 34. This is well
within the margin of error of the mass of the train anyway so this should not cause any difficulties.
Finally, the cost of the electromagnets is in the region of £1,500 each35. There are five trains, with
two magnets each giving a total cost of £15,000. The permanent magnets at a higher grade cost
about £50 each and four hundred are required making a total cost of £20,000 again. Therefore the
total cost of all the magnets will be around £35,00036. This is well within the project’s budget.
33
www.coilws.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=104 – Accessed March 2012
www.hightempmetals.com/techdata/hitempPermendurdata.php - Accessed March 2012
35
http://www.goodfellow.com/E/Permendur-49-Rod.html - Accessed March 2012
36
http://e-magnetsuk.com/magnet_products/neodymium_magnets/rectangular_magnets.aspx - Accessed March
2012.
34
Page 39
3.8 Braking
The roller coaster will make use of a modern magnetic braking system. This has much lower
running and maintenance costs than traditional fin brakes as there is no wear or tear caused by
friction between parts. Unfortunately magnetic brakes are unable to bring a train to a complete stop
as deceleration is proportional to velocity. It is therefore necessary to have some frictional braking
component, in many cases this comprises fin brakes after the magnetic brakes. Launch of the
Rings, however relies to a greater extent on magnetic braking and uses kicker wheels to bring the
cart to a complete stop when it bumps over and against them. These kicker wheels will then be
used to control the movement of the car into and out of the station.
The magnetic brakes work by having a fin which passes through a strong magnetic field. The
field induces eddy currents in the fin as shown in Figure 3.4.4. These produce a conflicting
magnetic field which works to provide a force against the movement of the cart. There are two
possible arrangements; either the fin can be mounted to the cart with strong permanent magnets in
the track to generate the magnetic field or alternatively many launched roller coasters have fins
mounted to the track and magnets in the carts. This latter has the advantage that emergency
brakes that rise out of the track can be located in the launch section, stopping the cart in case of a
roll-back or timing error in the launch.
It is impossible to place
permanent magnets in the
carts as these would interfere
with
the
magnetic
launch
process. Therefore if a fin
were to be attached to the
track it would be necessary to
use
the
electromagnets
already in the cart for launch
Figure 3.4.4: Magnetic Braking
to generate the magnetic field.
Page 40
Unfortunately this is not a feasible option as this would not create a failsafe system as the magnets
would become demagnetised in the event of a loss of power. The alternative system of a fin
attached to the cart and permanent magnets in the track will therefore be used. To overcome the
potential safety implications of a roll-back or problem in launch an extra emergency brake run will
be included just before the launch section which the car can safely move back into and be stopped.
The fin on the cart will lift up when it is traversing this section forwards so that the car is not
stopped then.
3.8.1: Magnetic Braking Calculation
For the purposes of this calculation the fin will be treated as a disc with the eddy currents
flowing in concentric circles of width dr. The eddy current produced in one of these circles should
be calculated using the principles of electromagnetism.
where E = emf generated, B = magnetic flux density l = length of loop and u = fin
velocity.
The next step is to use
in which ρ = the resistivity of the fin, to find J, the current
density. This enables the current di in one loop to be calculated from
when A is the
cross sectional area of the loop and t the thickness of the fin. Combining these equations gives
and by rearrangement:
Next , the equation for the motor effect,
to calculate the opposing force from this loop:
This can then be integrated to find the total decelerating force on the cart using boundaries of
zero and r0:
∫
Using the same N38 class of magnet as for the launch situated very close to the fin B =
1.1T.can be achieved. Based on the size of the magnet the maximum effective radius of the fin is
Page 41
r0 = 25mm. As is common for this braking method the fin will be made from copper as it has a very
low resistivity of ρ = 16nΩm at ambient temperature37 and will have thickness 6mm. By substituting
these figures into the equation above a total force of 214u N on the cart is achieved where u is its
velocity and therefore the fin velocity. The cart has a total mass of 3000kg therefore using
this is equivalent to a deceleration of 0.0713u ms-2. The deceleration can be further increased by
having a larger fin allowing multiple eddy currents at a time. If n is the number of eddy currents
therefore deceleration = 0.0713nu ms-2.38
The maximum deceleration that can be allowed is 15ms-2 as this is equivalent to a negative Gforce of 1.5G which is the maximum deemed permissible. In order to stop the cart in as short a
space as possible, it is desirable to be as close as possible to this upper limit. The maximum
velocity of the car will be just as it enters the brake run when it is travelling at a velocity of
approximately 20ms-1. Therefore we set n=10 as this produces a maximum deceleration of 1.43ms 2
. There is plenty of space for this on the car as from the dimensions of the magnet each eddy
current is 100mm long meaning that with 100mm spacing the total fin length will be only 2m, less
than the length of the cart.
As it enters the brake run the car is travelling at a velocity of approximately 20ms -1 and needs
to be slowed to a maximum speed of 2ms-1 to be safely and comfortably stopped by kicker wheels
alone. Denoting velocity by v, acceleration by a and displacement by x,
∫
At
∫
∫
therefore
To determine the total length of magnetic brakes required it is necessary to substitute in
and solve for x which gives the solution 25.2m. The true answer will however be up to 2m greater
than this due to the fact that the entire fin needs to be within the brake run to generate maximum
deceleration. In this design there is thirty metres allowed for the brake run which is therefore
sufficient.
37
David R. Lide, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 84th Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida, 2003;
Section 12, Properties of Solids; Electrical Resistivity of Pure Metals
38
Edward Hughes, Electrical and Electronic Technology, 10th edition, Pearson Education, Harlow, pages 136-142
Charlie Hill
Page 42
3.9: Control System
In considering the control system for a roller coaster, safety must be the upmost priority. A
roller coaster inherently involves high speeds, large amounts of acceleration, and also presents an
interface between man and machine. As such, a control system needs to minimise the possibility of
human error.
The Launch of the Rings circuit
can be broken up into three constituent
components: The station, the indoor
section, and the outdoor section, as
shown in Figure 3.9.1.
The outdoor section is the main
body of the roller coaster, and is free
flowing and fast. There are no braking
Figure 3.9.1: Sections of the track. Outdoor: Green. Indoor: Orange. Station: Red
or acceleration sections outside, and as such, the operators have no control over the roller coaster.
All the operators can do is feel comfortable knowing that as the roller coaster left the station, all of
the appropriate safety constraints, i.e. harnesses, were correct.
The indoor section is relatively slow moving. The track contains kicker wheels, at up to 1m
intervals, that ensure the cart is going the appropriate speed. By running a succession of wheels at
the desired speed, the cart is either accelerated or decelerated to this speed. The control for this
system is simple. The wheels need to run at a predetermined velocity. The current velocity of the
kicker wheels is determined from an electromagnetic sensor measuring the speed of rotation of the
shaft connected to the wheels. The algorithm running the control system is:
loop
if
end if
if
end if
wait
do loop
Charlie Hill
is the power delivered to the electric motor driving the kicker wheels, and
wheel velocity and desired wheel velocity respectively,
level, and
Page 43
are the actual
is a predetermined change in power
is the time taken for the change in power to lead to a steady state change in velocity. If
the velocity is lower than desired, the power to the motor is increased - leading to an increase in
the velocity of the kicker wheel. The opposite is true should the velocity be lower than desired. The
system then waits for the change to settle down, before checking again.
The kicker wheel implementation also provides a failsafe solution. Should power to the ride
suddenly fail, the wheels will stop turning. The frictional resistance of the motors would also
provide a stopping force on the carts. Due to the low speed of the carts in this section, this braking
force would not be sufficiently great to cause harsh deceleration to the carts or the riders. The only
fail risky scenario would be a failure in the control system, leading to the power to the motors being
constantly increased, and thus constantly increasing wheel velocity, i.e. a loop in the
line. This could be due to a software fault, or a hardware fault in the power supply, or the velocity
sensor of the wheel. Although the risk is small, a failure plan still needs to be considered. To
mitigate against this risk, we will consider the nominal, expected power required to drive the
wheels at the desired velocity,
. A power supply system would be purchased that was not able
to produce a large amount of power more than
. Thus, the power supply would be limited to:
being the amount of extra power required to accelerate the wheels at a satisfactory rate.
Typical values for
may lie between 1.6 - 2.5.
A third application of control mechanisms on the kicker wheels involves power saving. Rather
than having the wheels permanently running, it is recommended that each block of kicker wheels
be preceded by a switch that signals a passing cart, and starts that block of wheels. A second
switch would then follow the kicker wheels, and power them off. As such, the wheels would only
run periodically, rather than continuously, reducing electricity usage.
The
“off switch” block
could
be
placed
immediately after the kicker wheels. As soon as the
cart has cleared the section, the power saving
Figure 3.9.2: Arrangement of switches on wheel sections
Charlie Hill
Page 44
could be realised. The “on switch” block position is determined by the need for the wheels to be
turning at the correct velocity before the cart reaches them. Taking the length, , as the distance
between the start block, and the beginning of the kicker wheels, as shown in figure 3.9.2, then this
distance must be:
Where
speed, and
is the expected speed of the cart, usually the same speed as the kicker wheels target
is the time for the wheels to stabilise at their desired speed,
than this value, allowing for error. Typically,
.
must be greater
might be 2 times greater than the calculated value, to
ensure the kicker wheels are running at the appropriate speed before the cart arrives.
The station provides the most control over the cart. Here, the carts will run permanently on
kicker wheels, as described above. The kicker wheels will run at variable speed, allowing for the
cart to stop, and then resume.
The control system for this section will run off a number of signals. Figure 3.9.3 details the
station, and shows the origin of these signals. The signals are binary, and are thus either on or off.
The “Master” switch is a complete override switch located with the ride manager: on signifying the
track is clear for operation; off signifying that some event has occurred and all movement on the
track should stop. This would stop all of our kicker wheel sections, and thus bring any carts in the
inside and station sections to a quick stop. Should communications with this switch fail, the control
system would interpret the
failure as the master switch
being off: failure
in the
system, leads to the safest
outcome - the carts are
stopped until the fault can
Figure 3.9.3: The signals within the station
be rectified.
Other signals include the entry signal, E, which sends a positive pulse to the control system as
a cart passes over it, the waiting signal, W, which indicates to the launch system that a cart is
waiting for the track to clear, otherwise it is ready for launch, and the station signals, S. These are
Charlie Hill
Page 45
a bank of signals, which prepare the cart to be ready to leave the station. Highlighted here, these
include Ss - the station stop - there is a cart stopped in the station; Sh - the station harness indicating that the carts locking device has successfully secured its occupants; and Sm - the station
master - which takes input from the ride operator, that the ride is ready to depart. The ride operator
is presented with a switch that allows him to launch the ride, yet, if the station harness, or station
stop switches are not ready, the ride will not launch. A cart will only leave the station when all S
signals are set to 1:
The following steps summarise the process as a cart passes into the station, through until the
cart is launched onto the track.
1. A cart enters the station, triggering the E switch as it passes.
2. The cart stops at the station, triggering the Ss switch.
3. Passengers exit the cart. New passengers enter the cart.
4. The harness drops into place, securely locking, and triggering the S h switch.
5. The ride operator gives the all clear, triggering S m and permitting the cart to continue.
6. As the above equation, S is now triggered, the cart moves into the slow section.
7. The cart reaches the end of the slow section, and triggers the waiting switch.
8. A second cart enters the station, triggering the E switch as it passes, restarting this loop at
step 1, but for the second cart.
9. The track is now known to be clear, and the first cart is launched around the track.
The system can easily be modified to allow for three carts - two carts having passed the E
switch means the track is clear.
The launch conditions, into the outdoor section, can be summarised as:
Where z is set by the following expressions:
%safe cart counter
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
if E = 1 then safe = safe + 1
if launch then safe = safe - 1
if safe = n then z = 1
% n is number of carts in total
Charlie Hill
Page 46
The second expression is relatively straightforward. It states that if all signals give clearance to
launch around the track, then launch should be initiated. Station signals are not incorporated into
this consideration. Instead, the station variables are only used to move the cart from the station
into the indoors section. That is to say, when S is triggered, the cart can immediately move into the
indoors section.
Three variables are considered when determining whether to launch the cart. W signals that
there is a cart waiting and ready to be launched. M signals that the track is clear to run according
the master switch, and z signals that there are no other carts on the outdoor section of the track.
The first part of the expression is slightly more complicated. The aim is to count the number of
“safe carts” - that is to say carts that are either in the station, or on the inside section, with frequent
kicker wheels, providing lots of control - and then returning a signal if all of the carts are safe.
Alternatively, a signal that there are no carts on the track, and any waiting cart can be launched.
As such, any pulse, E generated by a cart entering the station leads to an extra cart being
added to the safe count - the cart has become safe, because it has entered the station. A launch
leads to a cart being made “not safe” - it is in the outdoor section, and we have no control over it.
The overall number of safe carts is constantly evaluated, and, if all carts are considered safe, then
the next cart is cleared to launch, i.e. the z signal is set to 1. This signal stays positive until the cart
is launched, that is that the w and m signals are also set.
This system guarantees that there is only one cart on the free-flowing part of the track at any
one time, and guarantees that in event of emergency or failure, all carts cease movement as
quickly as possible.
Strain gauges incorporated into the track and structure would have access to set the master
switch. Strain gauge analysis over time would lead to a record of expected strain values. A sudden
change in reading from any strain gauge, or linear drifting of values might indicate a failure of the
track. The strain gauges would then be able to de-select the master switch, stopping all of the carts
until the track was checked by maintenance, repaired if necessary, and the ride manager had
cleared the fault.
William Hancock
Page 47
3.10: Wheels
Two important considerations in designing a rollercoaster are safety and speed. These are
reflected in all aspects of the design and manufacture. The main limiting factors for the speed of a
roller coaster are the design and the materials used for the wheels. The four aims during the
design of the wheels are; low rolling resistance, high load endurance, smooth ride performance,
and high durability which leads to low maintenance cost. To maximise the energy efficiency the
rolling resistance caused by deformation at contact has to be minimised. The coefficient is typically
0.007-0.01839, but is increased by a lower pressure on the wheels or a higher exerted force. Using
other existing designs, a novel Solidworks model was created for the initial design.
3.10.1: Design of wheel connection
Nylon Wheels
Polyurethane wheels
Load bearing wheels
Folded edge
Filleted corner
Side friction wheels
Cart connection
Up stop wheels
Figure 3.7.2: Side view of wheel attachment
Figure 3.7.1: Initial wheel design
There are three main types of wheels used in the roller coaster. Firstly road wheels, these
bear the load or the weight of the car. Secondly are the side friction wheels which are mounted
perpendicular to road wheels and prevent any lateral movement of the cart. Lastly, there are upstop wheels which are placed under the rails to prevent the cart from coming off the track. The cart
will attach to the centre connection. It was deemed necessary to add a folded lip, shown in figure
3.7.1, to the outer edge to add strength and protect against the axle shearing up through the metal.
A lighter cart requires less energy to launch; therefore the connection should also be lightweight.
The thickness of the metal should be as thin as safely possible. To withstand the high forces every
corner has been filleted to reduce the stress concentrations.
There is a mixture of two materials used for the wheels, firstly, there is an aluminium hub
surrounded by polyurethane. This is a softer material which reduces vibration providing smoother
39
Value taken from coaster101.com Accessed 1-2012
William Hancock
Page 48
ride but does increase friction giving a slower ride. Secondly there is solid nylon which is hard so
has high vibrations and puts more wear into the track but does provide a faster ride. The
combination between these types creates a smooth yet fast ride. It is both hard and expensive to
make a track with no imperfections; therefore the wheels must absorb the small defects.
3.10.2: Calculation of wheel speed
The cart can travel up to a speed of approximately 45 mph, 72.42km/h, as it passes along
the track. The load bearing wheels are 150mm diameter and circumference of 0.5027m.
(
)
3.10.3: Wheel fatigue
It is important to have a prediction for the lifetime of the wheels under the stress load.
Routine maintenance checks should highlight any wheels which are damaged. To analyse the
properties of the wheels a finite element model can be created. In a biaxial stress state two
equations are solved:
(
)
(
)
,
(
)
For any fatigue analysis the loading condition has to be known. In this case the input stress is
cyclic whilst the ride is in operation as shown in figure 3.7.3.
Figure 3.7.440 shows the
relationship between the
alternating stress amplitude
and the number of cycles to
failure of a material.
Figure 3.7.3: Loading on wheel
Figure 3.7.4: S-N Curve stress amplitude
vs. number of cycles to failure
SECTION CONCLUSION
The decisions made during the design of the Launch of the Rings will ensure that it is unique and
will compete with the best rides in the world. The ride has many novel features and has overcome
numerous technical engineering challenges through attention to details and intricate design
procedures.
40
Graph researched from docstoc.com – accessed 04/12
William Hancock
Page 49
4: FOUNDATIONS AND FRAMEWORK
A detailed analysis into the support structure and foundations was undertaken. This is to
ensure that the ride will be safe and not fail in any way for the duration of its operational lifetime.
4.1: Geology
For any major construction the foundations are an integral part of the design and build process.
To be able to effectively and efficiently carry out this task an extensive evaluation of the site has to
be undertaken. A significant part of this is the local geology. The British geological survey carries
out soil analysis from many boreholes. On the site that is being studied there are five relevant
boreholes1 as shown in figure 4.1.1. As an overview the site is superficially, Alluvium, clay and silt
overlying sand and gravel. At bedrock level it is Oxford Clay formation and West Walton formation
which is an undifferentiated mudstone.
Details of borehole SP50NW59,
marked A on figure 4.1.1, are shown
A
in figure 4.1.2. The borehole is 30m
deep but only the first 14m, are
relevant as the foundations will not
be this deep.
Figure 4.1.1: Borehole data
Comparing data from across the site and neighbouring
samples showed that although there were slight variations of
depth and types of soils, these were all in the top soil region
Figure 4.1.2: Borehole A
<0.5m depth. The soil below this depth showed great similarity.
An initial survey called ‘Geosure2’ will be carried out by geological specialists. This happens
before any work occurs and looks to see if any existing water pipes or drains under the surface of
the site would be damaged by the planned buildings. The extra weight and forces from the
foundations could cause problems if placed on saturated ground or if in presence of surface water.
The water table at the time of sample was 18.29m below the surface. Nevertheless research has
demonstrated that the site is prone to flooding. This will have to be a consideration during design.
1
2
British Geological survey www.bgs.ac.uk - Accessed 1-2012
Geosure survey service www.bgs.ac.uk/geosure - Accessed 1-2012
William Hancock
Page 50
A simple soil sample structure was constructed for use in calculations, figure 4.1.3.
Thickness
Soft brown
sandy clays
2m
3m
Medium
Gravel
13m
Oxford
Clay
(becoming
harder with
depth)
Soil
Type
Sandy
soft
clays
Medium
gravel
Oxford
clay
Coefficient of
compressibility
(u) m2/MN
0.07
Dry
weight,
kN/m3
15.7
Critical
failure
angle,
30
Shear
strength
kPa
25
0.0052-0.01
18.8
38
15
0.046-0.12
19.9
23-25
17-76
Figure 4.1.4: Table of soil physical properties
Data from ‘Engineering properties of soil and rocks’ F.G Bell
Figure 4.1.3: Soil Structure
There are many potential problems that can arise from different soil types. A detailed
survey would be carried out to find the exact values of the properties shown in figure 4.1.4 above.
The frost depth would be found along with additional soil properties such as; bearing capacity,
compaction of soil, lateral strength and permeability. One problem that can become significant in
foundations is uplift pressure which causes heaving. This mainly occurs in fine grained clays which
are present on site but overlain by well draining gravel. Any potential problem should therefore be
minimised. The fact that the medium gravel is well draining also reduces the potential effect of frost
action, which causes different soils to expand at different rates. In general gravel and gravelly silts
have good load bearing capacity and undergo little consolidation under load.
An important calculation to consider is the one dimensional compression and consolidation
relationship using Terzaghi’s equation3.
A general rule4 for large structures is that soil compaction should be strictly less than ⁄ ”
(approx 0.0127m). It can be assumed that consolidation only occurs in the sandy soft clays and
medium gravel, as the hardness and strength of Oxford Clay increases with depth.
3
4
Terzaghi’s equation from ‘Theoretical Soil Mechanics’ Terzaghi K 1943
Recommended by BGS bgs.ac.uk - Accessed 2-2012
William Hancock
Page 51
Using an approximate design of a foundation based on a concrete cylinder 3m diameter
and 3m deep. The weight can be estimated to be around 0.5MN. From structural analysis in
section 4.5 the live forces from the roller coaster are predicted to be around 0.1MN. The stress is
equal to the combination of loads divided by the surface area of the foundation.
(
)
(
)
The answer given for maximum consolidation is slightly greater than the target value. This can
be then used to find the time till consolidation using chart 4.1.5 5.
Degree of consolidation:
This value of Uv = 0.121 corresponds
to a time factor of 0.13 from chart. The
time required for consolidation can be
Figure 4.1.5: Solutions to consolidation equation
calculated using the following
equation:
Rearranging this equation and substituting consolidation coefficient6 as approximately
1.5m2/year gives the time for any further consolidation to be less than 0.0127m as 0.54 years. This
approximate calculation shows that in the building process the foundations need to be cast and
placed in the ground then left for a period of 6 months; this gives time for the ground to consolidate
before the track is built on top of it. In many cases this time delay cannot be afforded and so there
have been many techniques developed to reduce the amount of consolidation of soils, for example
dredging out a certain depth of clay from under foundation sites and filling with more suitable
material. Alternatively, where coarse-grain soil (sand) is present compaction can be achieved by
using smooth rollers, or utilising dynamic impact or rapid impact compactors or vibroflotation.7
5
‘Solutions to consolidation equation in terms of degree of consolidation’ Barnes 1995
‘Value of consolidation of average soil sample’ environment.uwe.ac.uk - Accessed 3-2012
7
‘Compaction and consolidation techniques’ iadc-dredging.com - Accessed 3-2012
6
William Hancock
Page 52
4.2: Foundations
Once the geology of the site has been fully analysed it is important to produce detailed
designs of the structure of the foundations. The functions of the foundations are to transfer the
loads from the building to the ground, anchor the building against live loads, such as wind, and to
isolate the building from heaving and expansive soils. The loads acting from a roller coaster are
much more variable in size and range then in normal buildings which emphasises the importance
of the foundations for safe operation. The forces acting upon the foundation are compressive and
tensile forces, in both the vertical and horizontal direction. The uplift force, for example, is caused
by the cart passing through the cobra roll which creates a centripetal force on the cars and hence a
reactive centrifugal force is applied to the track by the cars. As the cart leaves the cobra roll it
travels down the hill and provides a downwards force on the track which is transferred through to
the foundations. A shear force from horizontal forces of the track must be accommodated by the
foundations. Finally a moment is created about the base of the support from forces being applied
at the top of the supports.
The initial foundation structure was designed using Solidworks and is shown in figures 4.2.1
and 4.2.2. The type of soil present and the forces that were predicted to be acting on the
foundation were taken into consideration when creating the most appropriate foundation type.
The dimensions of the foundations are
approximately a cylinder of 3m depth and a
diameter of 3m. A depth of 3m was chosen as it
allows the foundation to utilise the strength of the
medium gravel 2m below the surface. The edges
of the outside concrete in practice will not be a
smooth side as shown in the diagram but in fact
3m depth
much more uneven and lumpy. This increases
the surface area in contact with the soil and so
3m diameter
Figure 4.2.1: Solidworks design of foundation
increases
the
shear
strength
performance of the foundation.
and
overall
William Hancock
Page 53
1. Supporting column of
roller coaster
2. Column base plate
Close contact between
steel and grout
3. Anchor bolts
4. Shear connector
grout and concrete
grout and soil
5. 2nd Stage high
strength grout
6. 1st Stage concrete
Figure 4.2.2: Section cut through foundation
The main bulk of the foundation is made from concrete which has very high compressive
strength, 40MPa8, but is however weak in tension, 3MPa9. To give the foundation strength against
any uplifting tensile force steel anchor bolts are added, which have a high tensile strength,
2,000MPa. The compressive forces produced by the dead weight of the rollercoaster and any
additional loads are transmitted effectively through the 2 nd stage grout. If the entire structure was
made from concrete the stresses produced by the support would be greater than the shear
capacity of the concrete and so likely to cause damage. A high strength grout is used for the
section nearest the base of the support. At the contact between the concrete and grout, the
increase in surface area means that the forces are dispersed. This reduces the stresses which can
then be transmitted through the concrete. If the grout wasn’t ‘non-shrink’ it would be likely that
cracks would form in the concrete parallel to major stress planes, because concrete is a brittle
material. Any cracks that form would dramatically reduce the strength of the foundation.
The shear forces are effectively transmitted through the shear pin to the grout and also to a
lesser extent through the anchor bolts to the grout. This ensures that the support will not shear and
snap off at its base. The shear force of the concrete against the soil provides a resistive moment to
act against the possible overturning moment that is predicted. An analysis is shown below of the
performance of the foundations under different failure mechanisms.
8
Material physical properties from Engineering tables and data Howatson Lund and Todd 2009
William Hancock
Page 54
To analyse how the foundation will perform, calculations were undertaken which evaluate
the forces that will be applied to the foundation. A support structure is shown in figures 4.2.3 and
4.2.4; this is the design which will be typical for many of the roller coaster supports.
Figure 4.2.3: Solidworks model of support structure
9
Figure 4.2.4: Vekoma flying coaster ‘Stealth’
This model can be simplified and analysed as a pin jointed frame with rigid fixed joints at
the foundation bases, figure 4.2.5. The loading case during the clothoid loop is considered to be
one of the most extreme. Taking the maximum values from the Matlab simulation of the loop and
creating the maximum moment by taking the height of the support to be the maximum, 18.2m.
Fy
D2 = 3m
Maximum values from Matlab simulation:
C
Fx
60 kN
Fx
Fy
-40 kN
Mz
D1 = 18.2m
Mz
130 kNm
Resolving forces of the structure gives two equations:
A
60˚
V1
M1
B
V2
M2
H1
H2
Figure 4.2.5: Diagram of support for analysis
9
Photo taken from CoasterGallery Joel Rogers
⁄
William Hancock
Page 55
A similar analysis is used around joint C, which can be assumed to be a single rigid body in
equilibrium.
Fy
Mz
V1
V2
H1
H2
M1
M2
Fx
M1
R1
M2
R2
-64 kN
+104 kN
0 kN
-60 kN
-70 kNm
-60 kNm
Figure 4.2.7: Table of results from analysis
Figure 4.2.6: Diagram of joint C
These calculations can give us a prediction of the order of scale of forces that the
foundations will have to withstand. There are three major types of failure for the foundation.
1
2
Soil
Soil
3
Soil
Soil
Figure 4.2.8: Showing three methods of failure of the foundation
1. The first method of failure is when the uplift forces are greater than the foundation weight
and shear forces acting on it so the entire foundation is lifted out of the ground. Even a small
displacement would have extreme consequences on the support and track it is attached to.
(
)
This proves that the value of the weight of the concrete10 used is significantly greater than the
uplift force of 104kN so ensuring that with a large margin the foundation should not fail this way.
2. The second failure is when the structure is moved in a horizontal direction due to large
forces. Soil pressure and weight provides a resistive force against movement which would have to
be overcome. Soil can only provide compressive strength and so has no tension force ‘pulling’ the
foundation. This is because it is well above the water table and so can be assumed to be dry
without any pore pressure from water content.
10
Density concrete from Engineering tables and data HLT Howatson Lund and Todd
William Hancock
Page 56
Table of stresses in soil:
A
Position
Vertical
Stress
kPa
Horizontal
Stress
kPa
A
0
0
B
31.4
94.2
C
50.2
210
Sand
2m
B
Gravel
1m
C
Figure 4.2.9: Diagram of soil pressure distribution
Figure 4.2.10: Table of stresses in soil compared
with depth
The equations used are from Rankine’s passive soil state theory:
,
The stresses can be summed up and averaged over the height. This average stress when
taking only the components working against the horizontal force can be assumed to act on an area
of 9m2. This gives a resistive force of 739 kN, which is significantly greater than the maximum force
applied of 64kN so it will not fail by horizontal displacement.
3. The third is where the moment force will overturn the entire concrete base. The resistive
forces are provided by the soil displacement similar to above and also the shear forces around the
perimeter between the soil and concrete. During the calculations the centre of rotation (C.O.R) is
assumed to be about the centre of the foundation.
Using equations above a similar analysis can be carried out
C.O.R
except multiplying by distance to C.O.R to create a moment.
This gives a moment from passive failure of ~300kNm.
The total shear force can be calculated using:
Figure 4.2.11: Diagram of moment forces
This gives a moment caused by the shear force of 919 kNm. This again is significantly
greater than the maximum moment applied of 70 kNm.
William Hancock
Page 57
In conclusion the values of all three failure methods are significantly larger than the forces
applied. A safety factor of almost 10 times has been scaled in to ensure minimal risk of any failure
that would lead to catastrophic consequences. This method of analysis makes many assumptions
and is simplified to quite an extent, a more accurate analysis using finite element programs will be
carried out for the exact foundations.
In undertaking this project it is important to evaluate the cost of foundations and site preparations.
1. Site Clearance: Clearing site and taking off topsoil. Using an area footprint of the building
and supports of 3,500m2 and borehole data recommending removing 0.5m of topsoil this part of
the project will cost £2,000.11 Additionally the change in height of the ground across the site will
require more material to be removed so levelling the gradient out, this produces a similar cost of
around £2,000.
2. Setting out: Set foundation trench outlines. This is a skilled job involving the application of
surveying skills. Every load bearing wall and support has to have a marked out foundation beneath
it and has to be aligned with other parts of the structure. A simple site is around £200 cost 12, due to
the complex nature of our roller coaster this has been increased to £2,000.
3. Trench excavations: The deeper excavation for foundations will require the use of hired
heavy machinery. For buildings it is likely to be 60-70% of the footprint13 which leads to an estimate
of £17,500. Assuming there are approximately 50 support structures each requiring a 3m diameter
hole of depth 3m gives a cost of £15,700.
4. Concrete: The main construction material of the foundation. An estimate of ready mix
concrete is assumed to be £60 per m3. As footings are required the amount of concrete is slightly
less than the spoils removed. Assuming 2,000m3 concrete is needed the cost is £120,000. Using
comparative data13 an estimate of the cost of labour for concrete setting will be around £25,000.
5. Footings: The addition of brickwork or damp proofing between concrete and the building.
The cost can vary depending on technique. For the building which has 1,750m of foundation
trenches the cost is approximately £9,000.
11
12
Using cost of £15 per m3 removed from homebuilding.co.uk - Accessed 3-2012
Estimate values from homebuilding.co.uk - Accessed 3-2012
William Hancock
Page 58
Process
Site Clearance
Setting out
Trench
excavations
Concrete
Building
Supports
Material
Labour
Footings
Total Cost
Cost £
4,000
2,000
17,500
15,700
120,000
25,000
9,000
£193,200
Figure 4.2.12: Table of costs of foundations
4.3: Construction Companies
To ensure competitive pricing the raw materials needed to build the roller coaster have to be
sourced from a wide range of companies. As an example, the concrete that is being used to build
the foundations will be supplied by Smiths Concrete Ltd. This company was chosen in particular for
several reasons. Firstly the concrete plant is based near Witney which is only 10 miles away or 30
minutes by lorry from our site. This not only reduces costs, but also reduces the environmental
impact from transportation. Secondly the company has many policies that are in accordance with
the environmental outlook of our rollercoaster: “Smiths strive to protect and enhance the
environment around their sites. They seek to use secondary and recycled materials whenever
feasible. ”13 Our aim is to use as many locally sourced materials with environmental awareness.
The track and roller coaster carts are both being outsourced and built by Vekoma
TM
. Both
the design of our track and carts are based upon Vekoma designs and the entire loading
procedure is identical to the Flying Dutchman flying roller coaster. Vekoma have manufacturing
factories globally, from China across to Poland, Czech Republic and Netherlands. 14 All of these
facilities are fully equipped to build the intricate design of our track. We will choose to have the
rollercoaster built at one of the factories near the UK. From research into marine transportation
(freight liners) it is ‘the most carbon efficient mode of transportation.’ 15 The aim would be to use
train transportation to the coast and then shipping to UK. Either the factories in Poland or
Netherlands would be most suitable for the production and transportation of the track.
13
Smiths concrete environmental policy smithsconcrete.oc.uk/environment
Research from vekoma.com
15
Quote from Liner shipping industry and carbons emission policy apl.com/environment - Accessed 4-2012
14
Arthur Coates
Page 59
4.4: Structural Analysis
The typical loads that the roller coaster structure needs to be designed to counteract are;
Vertical loads
-
Dead load of the track, cart and the passengers
-
Accelerations
Horizontal loads
-
Accelerations, especially at the launch
-
Braking forces towards the end of the ride
-
Dynamic wind loads
-
Friction forces
Other considerations include
-
Fatigue analysis
-
Thermal expansion and contraction
-
Bracing for the highest parts
The model structure of the roller coaster will have a central spine onto which solid symmetric
ribs will be placed, onto which the circular track section will form. The main structure i.e the
columns, will then be welded onto the central spine structure so that the loads can be transferred
to the foundations and therefore the soil beneath. Roller coaster design companies such as
Bollinger and Mabillard use a square box section as the central spine, however this can be very
complex to design for due to the twists, rolls and banked turns which occur in the roller coaster.
Hence a circular spine section would be more efficient in use, as it is easier to design for because
of its symmetry, uses less material and therefore easier to manufacture.
4.5 Dynamics and Force Analysis
Since the highest forces will occur where there is the greatest acceleration,
, it is assumed
that the greatest forces will take place at the beginning of the ride in the loop when the velocity is
Arthur Coates
Page 60
greatest. Hence the focus of the structural analysis will cover the initial loop structure due to the
highly curved nature of the track at this point. It is intended that the structural analysis of the rest of
the ride will follow from these results.
The loop must form a special geometric shape called a clothoid because if the loop was circular, in
order to complete a full loop the acceleration experienced by the riders would equal 6Gs16. This is
well above the allowable health limit. The clothoid emerges as part of an Euler Spiral defined with
its curvature, , being proportional to its arc length, .
The equation of a clothoid loop is:
Equation 4.5.1
Where:
Where
and
are the radius and arc length at the end of the clothoid section respectively.
Hence whereas the circle has a constant high curvature leading to a high centripetal acceleration,
the curvature and hence acceleration in the clothoid increases with arc length from a low constant
value, ultimately leading to a reduction in the maximum G force (centripetal acceleration). In terms
of energy, the decreasing radius leads to a slower rate of increase in potential energy which leads
to a faster rate of decrease in kinetic energy which helps maintain lower accelerations. The typical
coefficient of friction is approximately 0.01 for the material used and energy losses due to friction
forces acting in the loop can be neglected through this analysis.
The constant
defines the shape of the clothoid section:
√
If the curvature
, then integrating the clothoid equation 4.5.1leads to:
(
)
A clothoid loop is typically defined parametrically through the Fresnel Integrals:
16
‘Amusement Park Physics: A Teacher’s Guide’, Nathan A. Unterman 2001
Arthur Coates
Page 61
Where
and
∫
(
)
∫
(
)
.
The loop for the roller coaster consists of a circular section for the bottom run-up section up to
. The clothoid section is defined as an intermediate section varying from
Finally there is another circular section at the top as indicated below:
18
16
14
Y Position
12
65°
10
8
θ
6
4
30°
2
0
0
2
4
6
8
X Position
10
12
Figure 4.5.1: Matlab formulation of track position and angles
Parametrically, the run-up circular section for
For the top circular section for
is:
)
(
)
:
For the clothoid section:
∫
θ
(
∫
14
.
Arthur Coates
Page 62
Hence after solving simultaneously:
(
)
The aim of conducting design work on the loop is to produce a force-time/track position plot onto
which dimensions for the structural supports can be determined. From this a stress-time/track
position plot can be generated using bending stresses through treating the analysis independently,
firstly as a beam and then as a column. First of all, the loop needs to be determined in order to
obtain a vector position of every part of the loop:
̂
̂
From this, the Frenet-Serret relationships17 are used to determine the dynamics of the loop
including velocity and centripetal acceleration:
̂
Where κ is the curvature,
̂
, ̂ is the unit tangent vector and ̂ is the unit normal vector
√
where:
̂
̂
Hence
̂
⁄ ̂
| |
, where v, the velocity, can be determined from energy conservation, neglecting
the effects of dynamic and aerodynamic friction losses:
√
Where u is the initial velocity going into the loop.
The method for constructing the shape of the loop is described below including code on Matlab.
1. Construct the bottom circle
% Bottom circle definition
dt = 0.001 ;
t=0:dt:(pi/6) ;
xcirc = Rb*sin(t);
ycirc = Rb*(1-cos(t));
17
See http://galileo.math.siu.edu/~msulliva/Courses/251/S11/torsion.pdf
Arthur Coates
Page 63
2. Construct the intermediate clothoid
% Clothoid definition
ds = 0.001;
s = (a*2*pi):ds:(a*(17/3)*pi);
xcloth = (1/a)*cumtrapz(cos(s.^2))*ds;
ycloth = (1/a)*cumtrapz(sin(s.^2))*ds;
3. Find the angle, , of the tangent to the track to the horizontal line at the end of the bottom
circle, and rotate the clothoid by this amount and then subtract the existing angle the
clothoid makes with the horizontal axis:
(
)
This is enacted using the rotation matrix:
( )
(
)( )
% Angle which clothoid must be rotated by to fit with bottom circle
n = length(t);
iniangle = atan((ycloth(2)-ycloth(1))/(xcloth(2)-xcloth(1)));
ang = atan((ycirc(n) - ycirc(n-1))/(xcirc(n) - xcirc(n-1))) - iniangle;
% Rotation matrix, rotated clothoid
xyang = [cos(ang), -sin(ang); sin(ang), cos(ang)]*[xcloth; ycloth];
4. Translate the clothoid section by the x/y coordinates of the end of the bottom loop in order
to fit them together,
% Translation
nxyang = length(xyang);
% End circle point plus x/y coordinates of
clothoid
xang = xcirc(n)*ones(1,nxyang) + xyang(1,:);
yang = ycirc(n)*ones(1,nxyang) + xyang(2,:);
% Addition of bottom circle and intermediate
clothoid
x1 = horzcat(xcirc,xang);
y1 = horzcat(ycirc,yang);
Arthur Coates
Page 64
5. Next construct the top circle using the same parametric equations used for the bottom circle
using
, and translate so that it fits onto the end of the clothoid.
% Angle of end of clothoid to the horizontal axis
nbot = length(x1);
angtop = atan((y1(nbot) - y1(nbot-1))/(x1(nbot) - x1(nbot1)));
% Definition of top circle
Rt = 6;
dt = 0.001 ;
t = (pi-abs(angtop)):dt:pi;
xcirctop = Rt*sin(t);
ycirctop = Rt*(1-cos(t));
% Translation
xt = xcirctop + (x1(end) - xcirctop(1))*ones(1,length(t));
yt = ycirctop + (y1(end) - ycirctop(1))*ones(1,length(t));
% x/y coordinates of half loop
x = horzcat(x1,xt);
y = horzcat(y1,yt);
% Whole loop
loopx = [x, (-fliplr(x)+(2*x(end)*ones(1,length(x))))];
loopy = [y, fliplr(y)];
6.
The Frenet-Serret relationships are then implemented on Matlab using ‘for’ loops as
shown:
for i = 1:p-2;
% N = dUnitT/ds
N(:,i) = (UnitT(:,i+1)-UnitT(:,i))./hypot((rmid(1,i+1)rmid(1,i)),(rmid(2,i+1)-rmid(2,i)));
% UnitN = N/mod(N)
UnitN(:,i) = N(:,i)./hypot(N(1,i),N(2,i));
% Curvature = mod(N)
curv(i) = hypot(N(1,i),N(2,i));
% Radial acceleration
acc(i) = curv(i)*((v(i))')^2;
end
Arthur Coates
Page 65
The velocity and radial acceleration plots are shown below for the whole loop:
35
20
18
Radial Acceleration of Loop/m/s2
30
Velocity/m/s
16
14
12
25
20
15
10
8
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Time/s
2.5
3
3.5
4
10
0
10
20
30
Length of Track/m
40
50
60
Figure 4.5.3: Plot of radial acceleration against
time for half the loop
Figure 4.5.2: Plot of velocity against time for half the loop
Hence this gives a maximum G force of 3.3Gs which is well below the allowable health limit for
humans.
From the dynamic analysis of the cart as it passes along the loop in the track, analysis into the
forces which act on the supports can be completed using a discrete method using the
vector of
position. The main supports which will take the dynamic forces due to the accelerations of the carts
on the track are placed at the end of the clothoid section at the 65° points on either side.
Ry
Rx
Mz
65°
Figure 4.5.4: Diagram showing the layout of the supports for the loop
The resultant reaction force acting on the cart is equal to:
Arthur Coates
Page 66
Which was calculated using the Frenet-Serret formulae. Hence the global forces and moment
acting on the supports,
need to be found in a track position plot as the cart passes
through the loop.
Resolving horizontally and vertically, and treating the loop as two dimensional, the global forces
and moment about the z-axis acting on the supports are,
( (
)
)
( (
)
)
Moment about Support/kNm
Y Force on Support/kN
X Force on Support/kN
Plots of the forces against the length of track for half the loop are shown below:
80
60
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
Length of Track/m
20
25
30
0
5
10
15
Length of Track/m
20
25
30
0
5
10
15
Length of Track/m
20
25
30
60
40
20
0
200
0
-200
-400
-600
Figure 4.5.5: Plot of the horizontal, vertical and moment force acting on the support of the half loop respectively.
The horizontal and vertical force plots show that as the horizontal force reaches a maximum, the
vertical force becomes a minimum, when no vertical force is applied to the support. The moment
acting on the support begins with a negative moment of 548KNm, but steadily becomes positive
over the course of the loop. These values will now be used in the derivation of support dimensions
and stress calculations.
4.6 Fatigue Analysis
Analysis into the lifetime of the loop can determine which section properties for the supports to
decide upon. Fatigue fracture analysis under fluctuating stresses is utilised. The structural
Arthur Coates
Page 67
members of the roller coaster must be designed to last for the 40 year lifespan as no structural
element has been designed to be replaced during this period. It takes 3.8s for the cart to complete
the whole loop. Assuming once the cart has left the loop, no forces will act on the loop supports.
This implies that the self-weight of the steel supports are negligible compared to the dynamic loads
due to the cart’s acceleration whilst completing the loop.
For the 40 year lifespan, the number of cycles to failure,
= (9 hrs/day x 303 days/year x 40
years)/(time for overall ride in hours)
Hence
cycles. This is the minimum the track should be designed for.
This signifies that high cycle fatigue will take place. Therefore the supports are designed so that no
yielding takes place. Assuming that the probability of plastic deformation can be neglected, and the
deflections are purely elastic, Basquin’s equation can be used to determine the allowable stress
range, given zero mean stress in a cycle, having determined the design lifetime of the structure. It
is found that the S-N curve which plots stress range,
against the number of cycles to failure,
when transposed onto a double logarithmic scale produces a linear relationship, therefore
indicating a power law equation:
Where
and
are empirical constants. In order to maintain at least
safety factor of F, the stress range must be not exceed a design value of
strength for this number of cycles is
18.
Figure 4.6.1: Plot of the Basquin Equation
18
Lecture 3, Mechanics of Materials, C. P. Buckley 2010
cycles of stress with a
where the fatigue
Arthur Coates
19
A typical S-N graph
Page 68
for high-yield structural steel which will be used in the construction of the
supports for the track is evidenced below. Steel exhibits a fatigue limit at roughly half the ultimate
tensile stress at around
cycles.
Figure 4.6.2: S-N curve of high-yield structural steel
So having obtained two empirical points determined from experimental data of the fatigue strength
of high-yield structural steel after a certain number of cycles, the constants for the characteristic
Basquin equation for this steel can be obtained. From this, the design stress range for the number
of cycles for the 40 year lifespan of the roller coaster can be gathered.
20
Solving the two equations simultaneously leads to the Basquin equation that defines high cycle
fatigue in high-yield structural steel,
Hence after
cycles, the maximum allowable stress range before plastic
deformation occurs is 314MPa.
19
20
http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/fatigue/fatigue_highcycle.cfm
http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/fatigue/fatigue_highcycle.cfm
Arthur Coates
Page 69
However the Basquin equation is formed on the assumption of zero mean stress, whereas the loop
has a high variable stress for the first 4s of the ride, and is then assumed to be zero. So
Goodman’s rule is used which estimates a linear interpolation between the stress range,
will give a lifetime,
, in the presence of a non-zero mean stress,
, that
21 .
Stress,
314MPa
Loop
Rest of Track
64
4
Length of Ride in Time in Seconds
4
Figure 4.6.3: Plot of effective stress range against time for the ride
600MPa
Figure 4.6.4: Plot of Goodman’s Rule for high-yield structural steel
Solving this equation leads to an effective stress range under zero-mean stress,
where
of 304MPa
. Therefore with a safety factor, F = 1.5, the design stress range,
This design value for the maximum allowable stress will be used for the calculation of support
dimensions.
4.7 Stress Analysis
Having determined the maximum allowable stress range, i.e the modulus of the maximum
allowable stress, an iterative process can now be utilised that calculates the stress in the supports
through changing the structural geometric properties of the supports resulting from the force
analysis conducted earlier in section 4.5.
21
Lecture 3, Mechanics of Materials, C. P. Buckley 2010
Arthur Coates
Page 70
There will be three ways in which the right support dimensions can be obtained; firstly considering
the maximum bending stresses, secondly determining the axial stress and then considering the
minimum buckling load of the support.
Ry
Rx
Mz
Figure 4.7.1: Diagram of the bending stress
The bending stress is calculated as:
Where the maximum bending stress is taken on the surface of the beam support by using the
maximum value of
which is a geometric property along with
, whereas
is a product of the
shape and dynamics of the loop from the Frenet-Serret relationships (see section 4.5). Hence
using an iterative process of varying the dimensions according to the British Standards of circular
hollow sections22 and using the Matlab values calculated from the moment and force analysis
before,
% Moment stress variation
% Using max stress on surface
StressXX = ((D/2)/I)*ones(length(Mz),1).*Mz;
The dimensions are minimised in order to give the maximum bending moment up to the stress
range limit of 202MPa. The graph below shows a variation of the maximum bending stress with
time for half the loop with the dimensions of
. The modulus of the stress range gives
22
Engineering Tables and Data, Howatson, Lund and Todd 2009
.
Arthur Coates
100
Page 71
Maximum Bending Stress/MPa
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Time/s
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Figure 4.7.2: Plot of maximum bending stress against time for half the loop
Relating the global forces obtained earlier to the global displacements using the global stiffness
matrix:
Then:
(
Where
is the transformation matrix with
)
for the orientation of the support from figure
4.5.4,
(
)
And the local displacements are given by:
The end of the support anchored to the ground through the foundations has no degrees of freedom
and is treated as a rigid joint, and the overall member is treated as a one-dimensional beam in
order to analyse failure by axial and bending stresses through the support.
1
2
Figure 4.7.3: Diagram of the local degrees of freedom of a one-dimensional structural member
Arthur Coates
Page 72
The degrees of freedom are
. Hence the local stiffness matrix is given by:
(
)
Considering axial stress in Cartesian coordinates by treating the support as a structural member as
from Hooke’s law for a linear, isotropic material:
before in plane stress
Where the axial strain is given
by the
local displacement
1.5
divided by the length in that
1
axial direction. To the right is
0.5
time for half the loop, which
records
a
maximum
compressive axial stress of
only
1.7MPa
and
Axial Stress/MPa
a plot of axial stress against
0
-0.5
-1
tensile
-1.5
stress of 1.1MPa, compared
to the yield stress of 400MPa.
-2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Time/s
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Figure 4.7.4: Plot of axial stress against time for half the loop
Having considered failure by bending and axial stresses through treating the support as a beam,
the dimensions are further checked by considering the buckling load. The support effectively acts
as a cantilever column, in fact this gives the most conservative outcome, and so the Euler critical
load is given by:
(
)
Arthur Coates
Which for the support’s geometric properties discussed earlier gives
greatest local longitudinal axial force acting along the support is
Page 73
, whereas the
, well below the limit.
In conclusion the support has been designed against failure by bending and axial stress by
considering it as a beam, and also collapse through buckling by analysing the support as a vertical
member. Moreover the support has been designed to outlive the 40 year lifespan of the roller
coaster through fatigue fracture analysis with a conservative safety factor. This complex analysis
has been completed on the support which is assumed will take the highest forces and stresses in
the track, and it is believed that further structural analysis will follow from the analysis provided by
considering the loop.
4.8 Further Structural Considerations
Further analysis that is essential to the technical structural analysis of the track must firstly
consider the dynamic wind loads, and then consider the thermoelasticity of the structure and how
the structure reacts to thermal changes.
4.8.1: Dynamic Wind Loads
The following guidance on wind loading for structural elements is taken from the British Standards;
Code of Practice for wind loads. The wind load will be calculated, again just for the track of the loop
including its structural supports. The ‘standard method’ is used which provides values of effective
wind speed through inputs of geographical and topographical considerations along with the
standard pressure coefficient determined by the shape and geometry of the structure, to determine
orthogonal load cases. This is the simplest analysis available, but includes important and sufficient
conservative coefficients which provide allowance for high loading cases. For free-standing
structural elements;
Where
is the dynamic pressure,
is the net pressure coefficient for the element and
size effect factor for external pressures. The value of the dynamic pressure
Where
is the effective wind speed.
is given by,
is the
Arthur Coates
Page 74
For the site on Oxpens Field, the effective wind speed takes into account the basic wind speed and
altitude, directional, seasonal and probability factors including also a terrain and building factor,
overall producing
. Hence
.
Moreover, when deriving the overall forces on the structure of the loop, the contribution of the
frictional forces must be taken into account. These act in the direction of the wind, and are added
to the normal wind pressure forces using vectorial summation assuming the wind is normal to the
plane of the loop (a probability factor based on directionality is taken into account in the effective
wind speed). Hence the overall loading P with values of
(
Where
= 0.8 and
)
is the frictional drag coefficient and equal to 0.04 and
and is equal to
= 0.91;
. Therefore the overall wind load
is the area swept by the wind
. When compared to the dynamic
forces due to the accelerations in the loop through its motion, see figure 4.5.5, the values are
entirely negligible. Hence after analysing the potential effects of wind loading it is decided that the
wind loads can be ignored purely due to the area swept being extremely small and because of
such low wind speeds for the site. Hence the pressure does not equate to high enough stresses to
be significant.
4.8.2: Thermoelasticity
Another consideration that requires analysis are thermal strains caused by changes in
temperature. The effect of temperature on strain is dilatational i.e all shear strains = 0, so for highyield structural steel which is assumed to be homogenous and isotropic,
Hence the axial stress of the main structural supports is given by:
(
However since
)
, in order to produce values of stress that could significantly affect the
structure the changes in temperature,
, must exceed 120° including a safety factor of 1.5.
Thermal changes caused by the weather are not going to cause these kinds of stresses. The
typical coefficient of friction is equal to 0.01 as mentioned in section 4.2, so typical energy losses
Arthur Coates
Page 75
are not sufficient to cause such a rise in temperature as well. Hence like the dynamic wind forces,
strains as a consequence of thermal changes can be ignored.
Section Conclusion
In conclusion, through firstly conducting soil and other geotechnical analysis, resulting in the
design of foundations, and then considering the structural aspects of the roller coaster, a thorough
and comprehensive framework has been established for the ‘Launch of the Rings’ ride.
Page 76
5: CONSTRUCTION
The construction of a major structure such as a roller coaster is often very disruptive. In this
section is explanation of the various mitigation measures in place to minimise this disruption as
well as a detailed description of the construction process and the main materials to be used.
5.1: Construction Methods
Much analysis was focussed on ensuring that the finished roller coaster follows environmental
and sustainable principles and causes as little disruption as possible to local businesses and
residents around the site. It is easy to overlook however that a great many such problems can
occur during the construction of the project. This area of the report focuses on the potential
disruption caused by construction and the mitigation measures being put in place to negate this.
5.1.1: Considerate Constructors Scheme
The Considerate Constructors Scheme (CCS) is a construction industry initiative intended to
reduce the disruption caused to residents and by construction sites generally. Construction
companies operating within the United Kingdom can sign up to the scheme indicating that they
agree to maintain certain minimum standards on their sites. Additionally, individual construction
sites can be registered. Adherence to the scheme is measured through regular inspections by a
monitor working for the CCS1.
Measures will be taken to ensure that only contractors accredited with the CCS will be
permitted to work on the site. Additionally, the site itself will be registered with the CCS before
construction starts. All contractors will be made aware of the CCS requirements and there will be
internal inspections to ensure that the correct standards are being upheld.
The main requirements of the CCS are in respect of safety, responsibility, accountability,
appearance, considerateness, environmental awareness and appearance. These are all areas
which are important for our site. It is important to note that the standards of the CSS are not the
standards the site is aiming to achieve but absolute minimum standards. In many areas
performance will go much further than the scheme demands as set out below.
1
www.ccscheme.org.uk/ - Accessed March 2012
Page 77
5.1.2: Noise
Noise is a major concern for neighbours of construction sites. Inevitably, building work is a
noisy process, with plant and power tools creating high volumes. It is an aim to reduce noise as far
as possible, as well as scheduling it carefully to minimise disruption.
The primary way in which noise will be minimised is by constructing as much as possible of the
roller coaster off site. Large parts will be transported by road to the site where they will be
assembled. Unfortunately there is very little that can be done to minimise the noise of the ground
works and assembly, however steps can be taken to minimise the impact that this noise will cause.
Firstly, in the noise abatement strategy for the finished roller coaster there are plans to import
and plant a belt of trees along the East boundary of the site. Steps will be taken to ensure this is
the first work to take place on the site, so that the trees will help reduce the noise of the further
construction work which takes place. A belt of trees such as this can reduce noise behind it by up
to 10dB and since the closest houses to the site are in this direction this will have a significant
effect23. Equally, there are plans to install double glazing for the closest residents to the roller
coaster and this will also be completed before construction begins to minimise noise. Good quality
double glazing can reduce the A-weighting of noise, a measure of noise to reflect volume heard by
the human range, by over 30dB45. The average A-weighting level of noise from a construction site
is 86dB and this should be reduced to below 65dB for residents during the day 6. The effect of the
trees and double glazing should therefore minimise noise to below acceptable levels even negating
for the effect of the distance of the houses from the site.
Finally, a moratorium will be imposed on noisy construction work at night. The only exception to
this is that it may be necessary to perform some road work at night in order to minimise traffic
disruption. As far as possible attempts will also be made to schedule noisy work between Monday
and Friday in order to minimise disruption for the ice rink which is busiest at weekends.
2
http://140.128.71.160/wrIIncut/course/20120116013749376.pdf - Accessed March 2012
www.medway.gov.uk/environmentandplanning/conservation/treemanagement/treeguides/treesandnoisecontr
ol.aspx - Accessed March 2012
4
www.1st-4-secondary-double-glazing.co.uk/sound_noise.html - Accessed March 2012
5
www.slimliteglass.co.uk/sound-reduction-and-u-values.html - Accessed March 2012
6
www.lhsfna.org/files/bpguide.pdf - Accessed March 2012.
3
Page 78
5.1.3: Traffic
The other most significant impact of construction sites on local residents is traffic disruption.
This takes two forms, disruption caused by road works with associated contra flows and other
traffic management methods as well as the additional construction traffic itself, which typically
consists of large lorries which may be unsuitable for some roads.
Whilst it is inevitable that some works will need to take place in the road, efforts will be made to
try to minimise the effect of these as far as possible by using appropriate traffic management
measures to reduce disruption to road users. Site management will work with the local council
under the provisions of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and will try and perform road works only
at off-peak times when traffic levels are significantly lower.
To reduce the effects of construction traffic, all deliveries and site traffic will follow a designated
route into Oxford and to the construction site shown in Figure 5.1.1. This will be via the Ring Road
and the Botley Road. This route has been chosen as it avoids the historic city centre which traffic
entering along Iffley Road, Cowley Road, Headington Road, Banbury Road or Woodstock Road
would have to pass through. Abingdon Road was not chosen as it is narrower where it passes over
the river. In case of problems Abingdon Road will be the backup route. Construction traffic will be
instructed to avoid travelling at peak times as Botley Road becomes heavily congested then and
additional construction traffic would worsen these problems.
Figure 5.1.1: Route for construction traffic.
Page 79
5.1.4: Access to Oxpens Meadow
Another potential area of disruption involves access to Oxpens Meadow. This is a protected
open space and is widely used for recreational activities. Access and as much green space as
possible will be maintained during the construction work as well as afterwards by working on only
small sections of the meadow at a time. These can then be opened for public use once completed
and work can move onto another area. Figure 5.1.27 shows an example of how work might be split
up. The work on the trees is undertaken first so that the houses on the East side of the site are
protected from as much noise as possible. The indoor part
of the ride is constructed last as this is the one area which
cannot be reopened to the public as a green space once
construction has finished. Whilst this area is under
construction access to the Southern part of the field will still
be possible by following the path along Castle Mill stream in
front of the houses to the East of the site. This route will be
clearly signed.
Figure 5.1.2: Possible Construction Phases
5.1.5: Keeping People Informed
A key element of minimising the problems caused by the construction works will be ensuring
that people are aware of possible disruption well in advance. There will be a road show held on the
park explaining what is going to be happening in advance of construction. Residents will receive a
fortnightly newsletter throughout the works advising of any disruption well before it happens. This
will include traffic works, night work, noisy activities, restricted access to Oxpens Meadow and so
on. The same information will be shown on a notice board at the entrance to the Meadow for
others to see.
7
Map courtesy of www.google.com/maps
Page 80
5.1.6: Environment and Sustainability
As required by the West End Area Action Plan sustainability is at the heart of the roller coaster
design. We intend to continue this diligence through to the construction process. To do this steps
will be taken to ensure during the tendering process that any potential contractor must prove their
environment and sustainable credentials. The winning contractor will be required to draw up a plan
to minimise any damage to the environment during the construction work. The design intentionally
avoids the tree line in front of Castle Mill Stream and the main river as these are the places of most
importance environmentally with the trees providing cover for bats and over fifty species of bird 8.
Construction methods will follow on from this with fencing being erected so as to ensure that the
construction plant does not encroach too closely to these and to any other areas identified as
environmentally important and so prevent damage.
5.1.7: Deliveries and Site Office
The southern-most half of the coach park will be used for deliveries and the site office. There is
sufficient space in this area for adequate welfare and office space for workers as well as additional
room for large lorries to be able to deliver. Using
this space for deliveries will prevent the need for
construction traffic to stop on the main road which
would severely hinder traffic. As there is space in
the coach park for the trucks to turn around this will
also enable them to arrive and to depart from the
site via Botley Road without causing more delays
turning in the road. An access for the plant will be
introduced from the southernmost tip of the coach
Figure 5.1.3: Site office and entrance
park into the meadow. This will enable the plant to be kept as far away from both the main road
and the residential area to the East of the meadow reducing noise and traffic problems.
8
http://www.oxpensmeadow.org/environment.html - Accessed March 2012
Max Jackson
Page 81
5.2: Manufacturing Process
There are several ways to go about erecting a roller coaster, depending, for example, on the
size and the materials used. Below is a common method9, and the proposed one to be employed
in the manufacturing and construction of our ride.
1. The site is completely cleared and a small section of the park will be closed to the public at
a time. This will take place in the off season in order to reduce the disruption caused.
2. Any existing obstacles, for example old structures, are removed from the site.
3. The ground is then moulded into the desired shape, through either filling or excavating.
4. Next, suitable holes for the foundations are dug or drilled, and the foundations themselves
are either poured or piled into these holes. The next section of the park is then closed and
steps 1-4 are repeated.
5. The main track supports are manufactured in two parts, to be bolted together. Initially, a
crane is used to bolt the bottom half of the supports to connector plates on the foundations.
6. The lower supports are then braced, allowing the top sections of the supports to be bolted
to them, again using the crane.
7. The track is manufactured off-site (a benefit of designing a steel roller coaster) and then
transported to the site to be erected. It is connected to the upper supports piece by piece as
it arrives from the factory.
8. The walkways and handrails, to be used for maintenance or in the case of an emergency
evacuation from the ride, are then fitted.
9. Next the starting mechanism and braking mechanism (in our case the launch and magnetic
braking) are transported to site and set up in the appropriate positions.
10. The roller coaster carts are also produced off-site and delivered by truck.
11. The building surrounding the indoor section of track and the boarding station for the ride are
then constructed.
12. Finally all the electrical wiring is connected, the roller coaster itself is painted black and lots
of Lord of the Rings props are delivered to aid with enhancing the theme.
9
www.madehow.com accessed 4/2012
Max Jackson
Page 82
5.3: Cost and Time
5.3.1 Time
The creation of a new roller coaster can be split into two main parts: the planning and the
construction of the ride itself. The time taken for each are related, insofar as a well-planned
rollercoaster with good, easy to follow engineering drawings would be very quick to erect, whereas
a disorganised or inaccurate planning section could cause large delays in the construction of the
ride.
5.3.1.1 Planning
The planning of a roller coaster usually comes in three parts, each concerning a different
person, or group of people. Firstly the theme park owner usually decides that his park is in need of
a new ride, either in order to replace a ride that is shutting down or simply to keep his park up to
date and ahead of the competition. Then, through working with the local council and investigating
any other constraints set out by law or the landscape of the park, decides on a suitable size and
shape for the boundaries of the ride and a rough idea of what type of ride is required. This stage
doesn’t take very long; it is usually less than one month from start to finish 10.
This information is then passed onto the designers. The designers’ job is to design the ride to
the best of their ability, whilst adhering to the constraints set out by the park owner. They try to
make the ride as interesting and exciting as possible, so that the ride, when it comes to fruition,
attracts as many people as possible to the park. This process, which is often an iterative one, can
lead so several different designs of possible rides and can last anywhere from one month to a
whole year11.
In the final stage of the planning, the designers work with engineers in order to combine the
initial ride designs into a single final design. The engineers’ job is to ensure that the ride is safe,
through investigating the forces experienced by the passengers, the track, the cart and the
supports at suitable points in the track, for example on tight bends or big loops. Once a final design
is reached, which can take several months, the planning stage is over.
10
11
www.ultimaterollercoaster.com/forum accessed 4/2012
www.ultimaterollercoaster.com/forum accessed 4/2012
Max Jackson
Page 83
5.3.1.2 Construction
As the manufacturing process has already been looked at in some detail in Section 5.2 it will
not be discussed in great detail here. However, it is of note that after the construction of the ride,
which can take from 6 months to a year on average, there is a period of testing or inspection, in
order to ensure there are no problems with the roller coaster.
5.3.2 Cost
The cost of designing and building a roller coaster can be very high indeed, for example
Mission: Space in Disneyland Paris is rumoured to have cost roughly £200 million 12, with the
sponsor, HP, and the park itself splitting the cost equally. Moreover, several rides currently in
operation have cost more than £100 million in total13; these include the vast majority of Disneys’ ‘Eticket Rides’ which are said to be the best rides in the park, along with some of the largest rides at
other parks, such as Universal Studio’s Hulk Ride. However, for the roller coaster being designed
in Oxford, it has been agreed that we wish to keep the total cost below £20 million.
As with the time taken to build a roller coaster, the cost too can be split up into several
distinct parts. Firstly, there is the cost of research and development. This varies a great deal
depending on the size of the park in question. Large parks have a dedicated team of designers,
whose sole job is to create many designs and proposals each year, of which very few ever come to
fruition. Smaller parks tend to have one design and stick with it from beginning to end, driving down
the costs involved with design. It is difficult to put a cost on this aspect of creating a rollercoaster as
it is often ignored when discussing the financial side of particular roller coasters.
Next there is the cost of manufacturing the ride itself. This usually makes up the largest
proportion of the total costs, and generally the fabrication of the ride is outsourced to a specialist
company. Some parks are able to reduce the cost of this process by fabricating their own rides (for
example Disneyland), but if the proposed design is complex and convoluted even the largest
amusement parks in the world are unable to manufacture them in house. Generally the ride alone
can cost anywhere from £1-25million 14.
12
Roller Coaster Database ( www.rcdb.com accessed 4/2012)
14
www.themeparkinsider.com accessed 4/2012
13
Max Jackson
Page 84
The next cost comes in the form of making the ride adhere to the desired theme. This usually
consists of using props and mannequins, both around the track and queuing areas, to recreate
desired scenes, painting the ride and ensuring any buildings fit in well with the theme. As with the
previous two sections, this cost can vary a great deal between parks. Some choose not to spend a
lot of money on the theme, instead hoping that the ride experience alone would be enough to keep
the passengers coming back time and time again, whereas others spend a great deal of money,
ensuring every detail is correct, in order to transport riders to a different world before they
experience the thrill of the roller coaster. This cost can be millions of pounds, and in some
instances, if the application of the theme is particularly intricate, can be as expensive as the ride
itself.
The final costs are associated with the maintenance and operation of the attraction itself.
These values are difficult to determine an exact figure for, as, for the most part, parks have a
maintenance and operation budget for the entire park, rather than for a single attraction. However,
it is accepted that each attraction can have maintenance costs of up to £100,000 a year15.
5.3.1.1 Cost of Track
The track can be split into three distinct parts. It consists of a large tube (which will be the
backbone of the ride), two smaller tubes (along which the carts travel) and the connecting beams.
To work out the cost of the materials, first we must calculate the amount of material needed.
The large tube will be 500mm in diameter and have a thickness of 14.2mm, while the two
smaller tubes will be 140mm in diameter and have a thickness of 10mm. These values give a cross
sectional area of 220cm 2 and 35cm2 respectively. As the connecting beams have a CSA of
approximately 400cm 2, but as they are not continuous along the length of the track and instead
only appear every 100cm, for 10cm, a value of 1/10 of their cross sectional area is taken.
Combining these three values gives a cross sectional area of 300cm 2 or 0.03m2.
The total length of the track is 688m, and therefore:
15
www.coasterforce.com accessed 4/2012
Max Jackson
Page 85
As structural steel costs between £1500 and £2000 per tonne, the maximum cost of the materials
for the track alone is £326,112.
5.4: Materials
Roller coasters can be built from either wood or steel, and selecting the more suitable of the
two materials is fundamental for the ride to be a success. There also exist rides of a hybrid nature,
where both wood and steel are used, but these are often complex and expensive and will not be
considered further in this report.
5.4.1 Wood
These are considered the original roller coaster, dating back as far as the 19 th century. Roller
coasters of this nature generally rely on ‘trestle-style’ structures to support the track and usually
Douglas Fir or Sothern Yellow Pine is used in construction16, which is then painted or treated in
order to give the desired effect. Steel is also used in this type of roller coaster both to reinforce any
important joints and in flattened strips, which are attached to the wooden track to allow the carts
ride on them. As wood is unable to endure the same magnitude of forces acting on it as steel, it is
impractical to include steep drops, sharp turns or high speeds in the design of the ride, and due to
the nature of the support structure, inversions too are unfeasible.
In terms of cost, while wooden roller coasters are initially much cheaper than their steel
counterparts, the cost of maintaining the ride is often far greater. This is due to the fact that they
require regular track lubrication and support maintenance, as well as occasional replacement of all
the flattened steel used for the track, as this deforms over time and can lead to a rough,
uncomfortable ride.
A further drawback of rides of this nature is that they are very difficult to sell in advertisement,
as due to the limits of wood, words like biggest, fastest and tallest are reserved for steel roller
coasters. Unfortunately, it is words like this that bring in crowds from a far, as riders want to
experience firsthand these superlatives.
One positive of wooden roller coasters, which has become possible in recent years, is the
ability for them to be pre-fabricated in factory, and then shipped to the site, as with steel roller
16
http://forthofer.hubpages.com accessed 4/2012
Max Jackson
Page 86
coasters. This greatly reduces both construction time and the disruption to the park during
construction. It has the added benefit of ensuring less maintenance is needed as these prefabricated sections of track remain smooth much longer, reducing the need for regular re-tracking.
The ride experience provided by wooden roller coasters is greatly dissimilar from that
produced from steel rides. Although they cannot compete with steel in terms of speed and the gforces felt by the passengers, they create fear in a very different manner. They use a more
psychological approach to frightening the riders, for example through the rough, unpredictable
movement of the carts or the deformation of the track itself. Here, the track is allowed to deform up
to a few feet, in extreme cases, as the carriages round steep bends. This gives an impression that
the ride is unsafe and could collapse at any minute, despite the fact that it is of course not
dangerous at all and remains well within the safe, elastic region of deformation.
5.4.2 Steel
In recent years, the steel roller coaster has become immensely popular, far surpassing the
wooden roller coaster. In fact, in 2012, of the 2822 known roller coasters in existence, 2649 are
made from steel and a mere 173 from wood17. This reflects both the public and the park owners
affection for steel rides.
They use tubular steel track for the carts to ride on, which can be easily manufactured off-site
and transported to the site for construction. This allows fast construction, little disruption to the park
and the ability to create very accurate sections of track, which when combined with polyurethane
wheels produces an extremely smooth ride for the passengers.
A further positive of steel rides is their ability to disregard the ‘trestle- style supports’ of
wooden coasters, for much fewer steel supports. These large, steel tubes appear much more
elegant in design ( although a few die-hard wooden roller coaster fans may disagree) and have the
added benefit of permitting several exciting elements to be employed in their design. These include
loops, barrel rolls and, in fact, any type of inversion. It is possible to see just how much using wood
limits the design of roller coasters by comparing the records held by rides of each material 18.
17
18
Roller Coaster Database (www.rcdb.com accessed 4/2012)
Roller Coaster Database (www.rcdb.com accessed 4/2012)
Max Jackson
Tallest
Longest
Fastest
Most inversions
Steel
456ft
(Kingda Ka)
8133ft
(Steel Dragon 2000)
149.1mph
(Formula Rossa)
10
(Colossus)
Wood
Page 87
218ft
(Son of Beast)
7359ft
(Beast)
70mph
(El torro)
0
Table 5.4 1 Table of Records Held by Steel and Wooden Roller Coasters
From this table is it is clear that steel rides have the capability to be built twice as high and to
travel twice as fast as their wooden equivalent, however the length of the ride is not dependent on
the material selected.
It has been decided that steel will be used in our design for several reasons. Firstly, the
relatively small plot of land on which the ride is to be built means that there is no room for the long
sweeping turns utilized in wooden coasters. The convoluted shapes possible with steel also mean
that we could create a longer ride, which is able to compete with the world’s best, despite the small
space available. Furthermore the height limit of 18.2m means that it would not be possible to use
the wooden coaster’s most exciting element – the large camelback hill. The more subtle support
system is another benefit of using steel to build our ride. It is important for the ride to complement
the feel of Oxford, in an unobtrusive manner, which would be near impossible using wood, given
the large, support structure that is needed. A further benefit of using steel in our design would be
its ability to draw people in from across the world. The exciting designs possible with steel are
much more appealing to the public and easy to advertise than wooden designs. The final property
of steel rides that appeal are the low maintenance costs. After the reasonably high initial costs,
there is very little money that needs to be spent on the upkeep of the ride, which, given the long
design life of our roller coaster, would be a great benefit.
SECTION CONCLUSION
Several techniques will be employed in the manufacturing and construction of the ride, in
order to minimise disruption and risk to the public. Furthermore, an idea of the time and cost
involved in building a ride was reached, and a suitable material selected.
Arthur Coates
Page 88
6: ENVIRONMENT AND AREA CONSIDERATIONS
The environmental and other area specific considerations of the site will now be considered
including restrictions and constraints posed by Oxford City Council policy.
6.1: Sustainability Introduction
The roller coaster development will aim to address many of Oxford’s existing sustainability issues
that affect the community in the West Area of Oxford. A key statement from the Area Action Plan
declares:
‘The renaissance of the West End will look to the future; developments will be economically and
socially sustainable and have environmental sustainability at their heart’.1
Therefore the ambition for the roller coaster project is to adhere to all environmental conservation
codes, to reduce the use of natural resources, to construct in a sustainable manner and to utilise
innovative technology that promotes sustainability.
Overall the aim is to place equal importance on social, economic and environmental sustainability
issues in Oxford through the Oxpens Field development as promoted by the ‘triple-bottom line’2
theory of sustainability. The most widely recognised definition of sustainable development:
‘Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs’.
The roller coaster aims to tackle the challenges presented by the UK Sustainable Development
Strategy3 which places strong emphasis on climate change, natural resource protection and the
creation of sustainable communities. On a more local scale, the Oxford Sustainability Appraisal4
lists certain objectives that the development will be able to combat and will be continually referred
to.
1
-
To create and sustain vibrant communities
-
To make opportunities for culture, leisure and recreation readily available
Area Action Plan, Oxford City Council
See for example, http://www.economist.com/node/14301663
3
‘Securing the Future - UK Sustainable Development Strategy’, March 2005, http://www.sustainabledevelopment.
gov.uk/documents/publications/strategy/SecFut_complete.pdf
4
Table 7, Sustainability Appraisal, Oxford City Council
2
Arthur Coates
-
Page 89
To address the causes of climate change through reducing emissions of greenhouse
gases, and ensure Oxford is prepared for associated impacts
-
To conserve and enhance Oxford’s biodiversity
-
To increase energy efficiency and the proportion of energy generated from renewable
sources in Oxford
-
To develop and maintain a skilled workforce to support long-term competitiveness of
the region
-
To ensure high and stable levels of employment so everyone can benefit from the
economic growth of Oxford
-
To develop a dynamic, diverse and knowledge-based economy that excels in
innovation with higher value, lower impact activities
-
To encourage the development of a buoyant, sustainable tourism sector
6.2: Renewable Energy
The Government is seeking to encourage the development of renewable energy production
through a range of legislative and commercial ambitions introduced through the Climate Change
Act of 2008;
-
Target of reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels)
-
Target of generating 20% of UK electricity by renewable by 2020
A key document from the Local Plan 2001-2016 introduced by Oxford City Council from which the
Area Action Plan was developed states:
‘The City Council will in particular encourage the use of solar panels, photovoltaics and, where
appropriate, wind generators on all developments (both new and existing), and on residential and
non-residential buildings.’ 5
Therefore it is highly favourable for the roller coaster development to include and design for one, or
a possible fusion of multiple forms of renewable energy to power a high percentage of the ride and
surrounding attractions.
5
Section 2.0, Core Policies, The Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016, Oxford City Council
Arthur Coates
Page 90
The two principal types of renewable energy that the development will consider for powering the
roller coaster are wind and solar power. The following data are for the consideration, practically
and financially, of wind power and show the average wind speeds for Oxford.
Average wind speed at 10m (m/s)
Annual
Lat 51 Lon -2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec average
10
year
average
6.62 6.11 6.26 5.34 4.88 4.61 4.55 4.57 5.23 5.74 6.22 6.47 5.54
Figure 6.2.1: Average wind speeds for the Oxpens Field Site
6
According to the Energy Saving Trust, average wind speeds of below 5m/s are not a cost-effective
way of providing electricity using current technology7. However, the data provided are more
importantly for ‘terrain similar to airports’, and unfortunately the site at Oxpens Field is enclosed by
relatively tall housing, tall trees and the ice rink on one side which have the combined effect of
lowering the wind speed as well as heightening its unpredictability. Hence it was concluded that the
construction of micro-scale wind turbines on location was not financially viable because of the lack
of potential power output.
Therefore the decision of focusing the renewable power generation on solar power was reached.
Solar PV technology already exists in the neighbouring streets such as in Dale Close and Trinity
Street8 as displayed below. This demonstrates
that solar panels can be used in this area of
Oxford, so long as a suitable location is found
on the site.
Clearly
there
are
numerous
challenges
involved in the implementation of a solar panel
array. The area in which the panels are placed
must have as little shading as possible either
by tall trees and the ice rink. The array must
6
Figure 6.2.2: Photo of existing solar panels on
nearby housing
Natural Resource Impact Analysis, Oxford City Council
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generate-your-own-energy/Wind-turbines/How-to-measure-wind-speed
8
See the Oxford Solar Initiative, http://oxfordsolar.energyprojects.net/
7
Arthur Coates
Page 91
have as much direct contact with solar radiation as possible to maximise the output power.
Moreover, the PV array must be higher than the height of a typical flood. Hence the solar panels
will be placed on top of the indoor section of the roller coaster which has a potential area of
3750m2.
From the Energy Saving Trust, the solar data for the Oxpens Field site were recorded9 and the
amount of power that can potentially be extracted using a PV crystalline silicon array of the typical
1, 2 or 4 KWp systems is calculated for the area.
Solar PV Array Data
System
1KWp
Power (KWh)
851
2
Area (m )
10
Cost (£)
7500
2KWp
1707
16
12000
4KWp
3414
28
16000
Power needed for launch = 150kW
So running for 9 hours/day, 303 days/year
Power needed =
409050KWh/year
Figure 6.2.3: Table of Solar panel
characteristics for 1,2 and 4 KWp systems
From this information about the three different types of solar panel systems, and based upon the
power required to run the roller coaster, a linear optimisation program in Matlab is constructed.
This calculates the numbers of each system that maximises the potential output power, given the
three constraints of power and area required, and initial capital cost. Since the area is insufficient in
providing 100% of the power of the roller coaster through solar, the cost of powering the necessary
shortfall is taken into account. This will be supplied by the electricity grid from the Osney substation. Furthermore to produce a more realistic model, two extra factors are considered; the
degradation in the output efficiency of the PV panels over time and electricity inflation over the 40
year lifetime of the ride. Ultimately this is used to prove that it costs less to power the roller coaster
through the utilisation of solar panels compared to powering through the general grid.
6.2.1: Cost of powering through the grid
Assuming 5% constant inflation for the next 40 years (standard goods inflation at 3% plus energy
inflation at 2%)
Present cost of 1KWh through grid = 12.5p
9
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generate-your-own-energy/Solar-panels-PV/Solar-Energy-Calculator
Arthur Coates
Page 92
Cost in first year, a = 409050 x 0.125 = £51,000
Hence over n = 40 year lifetime of the roller coaster using a geometric series with r = 1.05,
=
( − 1)
−1
The total cost of powering the roller coaster purely through the grid will cost £6.18m.
6.2.2: Cost of utilising solar power
Analysis into the cost of powering the ride using solar arrays firstly uses linear optimisation. This
uses a linear function to be maximised which in this case is the power,
max ≤ , ≥ 0
Where is the objective power maximisation function and ≤ are the linear constraint
matrices of power, area and cost as shown below with numbers from figure 6.2.3:
851
= − 1707&
3414
)
409050
851
1707
3414
10
16
28 & * & = &
7500 12000 16000 +
Where ) ,* and + are the number of 1,2 and 4 KWp systems to be used in the array.
If one-third of the area on top of the indoor section of the roller coaster is required for maintenance
of the solar panels then that leaves a 50m x 50m section available. Given an initial capital
investment of £1.8m for the acquisition of solar panels, the following code produces results shown
below:
% Set up matrices
f=-[851; 1707; 3414];
A=[851 1707 3414; 10 16 28; 7500 12000 16000];
b=[409050; Area; Cost];
lb = zeros(3,1);
% Power maximisation
% Solve
x = linprog(f,A,b,[],[],lb);
y=floor(x)
% Power, Area and Cost calculation
P = [851 1707 3414]*y
% KWh
A = [10 16 28]*y
% m^2
C = 1000*[7.5 12 16]*y
% £
Arthur Coates
Page 93
Hence this produces 303846KWh/year using 2492m2 of area and costs £1.424m using the optimal
combination of solar systems, 1, 2 or 4 KWp. Since there is a shortfall in the amount of power
produced to the amount required, it is now the objective to calculate how much more power will be
needed and the cost of it. A degradation equation which models the decrease in output efficiency
over time of the crystalline silicon solar panels is introduced. From research10, the most favourable
equation which exactly models the decrease is a logarithmic function of the type,
() = − ln( + ) + Where a, b and c are constants. To find these constants, three typical boundary conditions are
used with,
1. () = 1 = 0
2. () = 0.9 = 12
3. () = 0.8 = 25
(10% ↓ 34125)
(20% ↓ 34255)
Hence solving the simultaneous equations produces,
() = 7.21 − 1.25ln( + 144) 0 ≤ ≤ 405
Furthermore a basic inflation model is constructed in continuous time which is used to calculate the
cost of drawing the necessary extra power from the grid for the 40 year lifespan. The following
code produces a column vector of average values of inflation per year in order to directly calculate
the yearly costs of powering the roller coaster.
syms t
i = 1.05^t;
40yrs
ezplot(i,[0,40])
% 5% constant inflation over
% Inflation function plot
I = int(i,0,1);
for k=2:40
I = [I; int(i,k-1,k)];
% Average inflation per year
end
F = vpa(I)
10
% Inflation values per year
%
as a multiple of the first year
See for example http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/pvmrw2011_p71_csi_chou.pdf
Arthur Coates
Page 94
The yearly cost of powering through solar power for the roller coaster is then calculated through:
65 = 7409050 − (8 × ): × 0.125 × ;
Where P is the power produced each year, which is constant, e is the fractional yearly degradation
values and F is the yearly inflation values. Therefore the total cost comes out as,
= <= 65> + ?@44?@3A@
In conclusion the total cost reaches a value of £4.02m for the 40 year lifespan and therefore the
introduction of solar panels for powering the roller coaster leads to approximately a 35% reduction
in costs in the longevity of the ride. Moreover from the Energy Saving Trust11 this assembly of solar
panels will save 145 tonnes of CO2 a year which goes a huge way in cutting Oxford’s greenhouse
gas emissions.
6.3: Environmental Sustainability
In terms of environmental sustainability, the roller coaster aims in three parts to conserve wildlife,
maintain green space and enhance the natural biodiversity as specified in Oxford’s sustainability
objectives from the Sustainability Appraisal.
Oxpens Field is bordered by two rivers; the river Thames and Castle Mill Stream which runs along
the Eastern edge. From the Area Action Plan, numerous ambitions were established for the
Oxpens Field development to preserve the river
environment, but also to accentuate the natural
features of the site to make it a more welcoming
place to visit. First of all, according to the
Oxford City Council, the Thames ‘represents
one of Oxford’s most important natural assets’.
The Thames forms value in terms of natural
Figure 6.3.1: Photo of existing Thames path on Oxpens Field
11
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generate-your-own-energy/Solar-panels-PV/Solar-Energy-Calculator
Arthur Coates
Page 95
beauty, recreation and the enrichment of Oxford’s landscape. Development on Oxpens Field will
provide an ‘opportunity to improve access to the Thames’ and an ‘attractive frontage to the river
will be created’12. The aim is therefore to fashion a green, tree-lined frontage to the Thames by
planting more trees which will also encourage wildlife. Furthermore an upgrade of the network of
cycle and walking routes along the Thames will take place which will improve access for locals and
boost tourism through the Thames national trail13. A new footbridge will also be constructed
between Oxpens Field and Grandpont nature park on the opposite side of the river again improving
access and linking two great tourism features of Oxford in the future.
Again from the Area Action Plan, Castle Mill Stream offers ‘significant opportunities in terms of
amenity, recreational and biodiversity’ value. Not only does it hold an opportunity to create an
‘attractive streamside park’ but also an exciting ‘wildlife corridor’. The aim in redeveloping Castle
Mill Stream is two-fold; from a biodiversity enhancement and an access point of view. More native
aquatic vegetation will be planted in the stream, along with consolidation of the natural banks
which will take place during the construction of the roller coaster. This will encourage new species
of plants and animals to colonise the area, therefore heightening the biodiversity of Oxpens Field.
Moreover a pedestrian path will be built that runs along Castle Mill Stream from the River Thames
towards the city centre of Oxford, therefore encouraging visitors to the amusement park.
Plant more trees
along waterfront
Attractive
streamside
walkway
Consolidate
natural banks
Plant more
aquatic vegetation
12
13
Area Action Plan, Oxford City Council
See http://www.nationaltrail.co.uk/ThamesPath/
Figure 6.3.2: Photo
showing proposed plans
to redevelop Castle Mill
Stream
Arthur Coates
Page 96
There are currently no protected trees in Oxpens field covered by council planning policy, yet there
are some mature and beautiful blue cedar trees along Castle Mill Stream and adjacent to the ice
rink. It is the aim of the construction process to minimise the risk of losing trees whilst the roller
coaster is being built. Any trees lost during the construction aspect will be replaced according to
the council’s planning policy14.
POLICY NE.15 - LOSS OF TREES AND HEDGEROWS
Planning permission will not be granted for development proposals which include the removal of trees,
hedgerows and other valuable landscape features that form part of a development site, where this would
have a significant adverse impact upon public amenity or ecological interest.
Planning permission will be granted subject to soft landscaping, including tree planting, being undertaken
whenever appropriate. Landscaping schemes should take account of local landscape character and should
include the planting of indigenous species where appropriate. Where necessary, the City Council will seek
long-term management plans, which will be secured through planning conditions or a planning obligation.
Figure 6.3.3: Oxford City Council Policy on the protection of trees
Furthermore, it is the aim of the ‘Launch of the Rings’ development to plant many more trees along
both riverfronts as discussed above and in the centre of the field in order to reduce the effects of
flooding and noise pollution, and more significantly to accentuate the natural beauty of the site and
to encourage the creation of wildlife habitation.
English Nature has identified Oxford and the surrounding area as a ‘Prime Biodiversity Area’15. On
the other hand, the exact site of Oxpens Field has not been recognised as a Special Area of
Conservation (SAC), nor as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSIC), nor as a Site of Local
Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC)16 so planning permission is much easier to obtain due
to the lack of local natural habitats. However, it is the aim of the roller coaster development to
maintain the ambitions of Oxford City Council concerning biodiversity in Oxpens Field. The plan of
action is to ‘safeguard any existing features of ecological importance’17, especially during the
construction process, whilst also enhancing any local biodiversity through the planting of more
natural vegetation both in the field and in local aquatic habitats. According to ‘Friends of Oxpens
Meadow’ over 50 species of birds have been observed in the area18 which is confirmed by the
14
Section 4.0, Natural Environment, The Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016, Oxford City Council
http://www.naturalareas.naturalengland.org.uk/Science/natural/profiles%5CnaProfile64.pdf
16
http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Direct/CSCoreStrategyAdoptedProposalsMapSouth.pdf
17
Policy NE 17, Section 4.0, Natural Environment, The Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016, Oxford City Council
18
http://www.oxpensmeadow.org/environment.html
15
Arthur Coates
Page 97
Oxford Urban Wildlife Group through local studies . The challenges of environmental sustainability
19
will play an extremely important role in the sustainable development of the roller coaster in Oxpens
Field. Yet through not only conserving biodiversity, but fortifying the future of local wildlife habitats,
a major tourist attraction can be shaped in the future.
6.4: Social Sustainability
As referred to in section 6.1, it is an axiom of the ‘triple-bottom line’ theory of sustainable
development to enhance the social quality and equity of the local community. This is also
reinforced through the Sustainability Appraisal produced by the City Council.
The redevelopment of the Thames River and Castle Mill Stream will include the introduction of a
riverside walkway which will revitalise the Thames Path and will encourage many more visitors to
the site. It is the aim of the development to not only increase public access to the site and to
provide an opportunity for the public to enjoy the local river scenery, but also to maintain the SR5
green space in the centre of the site as in section 6.6. In addition a cycle lane will be built along the
Thames riverfront which will encourage outdoor activity for the local community, and provide a way
for many people to commute from the centre of town to outer districts such as Osney and Botley.
As a consequence of this, two cycle parks will be constructed as shown on the proposals map
below (figure 6.4.1). This will encourage people to travel in non-polluting modes of transport rather
than taking their cars. Subsequently, this will act to eliminate congestion and pollution on Oxpens
Road, and will realise the Area Action Plan’s motive of transforming the ‘feel and ambience of
Oxpens Road’ to pedestrians and cyclists.
19
http://www.ouwg.org.uk/surveys.htm
Arthur Coates
Page 98
Key;
Pedestrian footpath
Cycle Path
Footbridge
Cycle Park
Figure 6.4.1 Map showing the proposed developments concerning access to the site
There are also plans to get the community and local schools involved with the construction of
the roller coaster and the conservation of Oxpens Field including the building and maintenance of
local river features. The aim is to organise day trips for the local schools to learn about construction
and the engineering behind the project. This will not only promote science and engineering to the
children, but will also, more significantly, encourage higher education as an ambition for the school
attendees. Ultimately this will promote the ‘knowledge-based economy’ that Oxford City Council
desires and that makes Oxford thrive as an economic hub, whilst simultaneously reinforcing the
development’s links to the local community. Moreover day visits will be organised for the local
youth community20 to help with the conservation effort taking place on the site. The development
team will work cooperatively with local conservation and nature groups such as ‘Friends of Oxpens
Meadow’, ‘Oxford Conservation Volunteers’ and ‘Oxford Nature Conservation Forum’. Children will
actively help with the planting of vegetation, habitat maintenance and caring of local wildlife, whilst
also learning about Oxford’s rich biodiversity and the importance of conservation and protection of
green space in accordance with the Oxford Local Plan and the Area Action Plan. The roller coaster
will become a symbol of how human development can coexist with wildlife conservation, whilst
heightening the ‘vibrancy’ and social quality of life for the local community.
20
See for example http://www.thebestof.co.uk/local/oxford/local-guide/youth-clubs
Arthur Coates
Page 99
6.5: Economic Sustainability
The most significant sustainability issues that directly affect the local population of Oxford are
economically-grounded. The two main challenges that face the Oxford City Council, which can be
addressed by the Oxford Roller Coaster development are;
-
Pockets of poverty, social exclusion and deprivation
-
Differences in proportion of unemployed and long-term unemployed across the city21
This can be simply tackled through the objectives of;
-
Developing and maintaining a skilled workforce to support the long-term
competitiveness of the region
-
Ensuring high and stable levels of employment so everyone can benefit from the
economic growth of Oxford
-
Stimulating economic revival in priority regeneration areas
-
Encouraging the development of a buoyant, sustainable tourism sector22
These have been previously described in section 6.1.
In essence, through the roller coaster development, the long-term economic goal is to provide
ample stable employment. For the currently unemployed, essential jobs will be created such as
maintenance of the site which encompasses cleaning, security and risk management. Moreover
the development will provide active employment in mechanical, civil and electrical engineering
which is needed in the utilisation of innovative technology in the roller coaster. The aim is to make
this economically sustainable through localising as much of the employment as possible. Increased
tourism to the ‘West End’ of Oxford will be buoyed by the sustainable measures undertaken in the
development i.e over 60% of the ride will be powered by ‘zero-carbon’ renewable energy. This will
therefore lead to a stimulation of local retail and client businesses as Oxford widens its tourism
market through another ‘world famous’ attraction. This will also encourage the growth of smaller
businesses and will vitalize entrepreneurship in the West Oxford area as more opportunities
become available. An ambition is to hold an annual technology fair at the site that will aim to
21
22
Arthur Coates
Page 100
champion Oxford’s reputation as a technological centre. However, arguably the most important
method of achieving sustainable development is through the numerous education workshops for
the local youth as described in section 6.4. This will provide a long-term view that not only
promotes education to the youth population, but a sustainable education that supports the
economic competitiveness of Oxford through science and engineering. Overall the development on
Oxpens Field aims to tackle Oxford’s diverse sustainable issues through encapsulating a wide
spectrum of challenges that Oxford faces. Through enriching green space, enhancing biodiversity
and wildlife, minimising the environmental impact of construction, increasing accessibility by
sustainable modes of transport and promoting high growth and high productivity sectors, the roller
coaster
development
will
become
a
paragon
of
sustainable
development.
William Hancock
Page 101
6.6: Council Planning Policies
Planning policies are essential in controlling development across the country. Oxford has
a very detailed planning policy guide (PPG) to protect the many historic buildings and famous
landmarks in Oxford. For the proposed roller coaster to be approved all aspects have to be in
accordance with the PPG23. One section of the policy that had to be researched was the possible
archaeology present on the proposed site. It was concluded that there was no evidence of any
archaeological on the site, the closest being Bronze Age barrows in Port Meadows just over 2km
away.24
Interestingly, as shown in figure 6.6.125, the site is divided into two sections. The Eastern
half of the site of the roller coaster is an SR.5 Protected open space. This refers to another policy
from
Oxford
Core
Strategy
Examination26
which
states
any
development has to ‘ensure current level of public accessible open
space per 1000 population is maintained.’ It is one of our aims to
ensure that as much of Oxpens Meadow is left available for
recreational activities by the public, in particular the protected area
Figure 6.6.1: Map of proposal
areas in Oxford
highlighted on the map in green.
The next policy section HE.9 is in reference to ‘High Building Area.’ This aims to preserve
the historic skyline of Oxford and states that, ‘planning permission will not be granted to any
building within 1.2km of Carfax which exceeds the height of 18.2m.’ Oxpens meadow is ~0.6km
from the Carfax tower so is subjected to this height restriction. When designing the track the entire
construction will have to be thrilling and exciting without exceeding 18.2m in height. This creates a
significant technical challenge.
Finally, another important aspect that has to be considered is the lighting of the coaster. If
the roller coaster is presumed to be closed during winter months, December-February, and
reopens again in March this could lead to a lighting problem. In March the sun sets at 18:00 and in
23
Planning policy oxford.gov.uk/ Oxford_Local_Plan
‘Archaeological sites on Port Meadows’ R.J.C Atkinson 1956
25
oxford.gov.uk/Direct/CSCoreStrategyAdoptedProposalsMapSouth
26
Policy CS22 Oxford Core strategy oxford.gov.uk
24
William Hancock
Page 102
November even earlier at 16:00 . The rollercoaster will need to be in operation past these times in
27
order to provide for the safety and comfort of the riders it will have to be illuminated by spotlights.
There is a policy HE.11- Architectural lighting which ensures that the lighting is unobtrusive, will
enhance the feature and have adequate safeguards against light pollution. One business idea
uses the fact that the ride may be more ‘scary’ in the dark and could be a special event to
advertise. For example, an advertising slogan could be “Dare you come back after dark?” This
would encourage repeat customers looking for a different experience.
There are also many policies that were created to encourage development which produces
beneficial outcomes. One example is for the development of footpaths and bridleways particularly
along the Thames Path National trail. The trail is along the edge of the site but is generally
unkempt. There would therefore be an opportunity for development, as seen in the photos in figure
6.6.2. This would create a network of green scenic pathways across Oxford, which tourists would
be encouraged to spend time walking whilst enjoying the beautiful views.
Figure 6.6.2: Photos of
the Thames Path
National Trail
The Thames waterway is a well used stretch of river and there is the possibility of developing
small visitor moorings along the bank in accordance with policy SR.14. This could only be done as
long as it doesn’t cause environmental damage or interfere with the navigation of other river
vessels. Osney Mill Marina is not far downstream from our site. This is a marina with over 40
moorings and provides an example of some of the users of the river. A company already exists
which gives ‘Oxford River Cruises.’ An additional stop could be created to visit the ride. It is
planned to set up a small boat taxi service collecting customers from the station and the Head of
the River pub. The additional mooring scheme on our site could increase the number of tourists
that are likely to visit the roller coaster and would help with the development of the river side.
27
Times based on values from timeanddate.com - Accessed 3-2012
William Hancock
Page 103
6.7: Flood Risk
Much of Oxford is at flood risk for a number of different reasons. The floods are not caused
by rain water falling in the immediate area, but from water which has fallen as far away as the
Cotswolds, which then flows down the valley of the River Thames.28 This large catchment area
means there are significant volumes of water travelling through the Oxford area. The most severe
flooding occurs in the area immediately to the west of Oxford. There is a marked natural geological
narrowing of the Thames Valley just to the South which has been worsened by the building of the
railway, roads and buildings, and by landfill. Lack of maintenance to certain built up areas and
causeways act as an intensifier to the floods. When flooding occurs there are insufficient flood
plains to hold the additional water.
Figure 6.7.1: (left)
EA map of flood risk
Figure 6.7.2: (right)
Photo of area July 2007
The exact site of the rollercoaster is prone to flooding as shown in both figure 6.7.129 and
the photo, figure 6.7.2, which was taken during the severe 2007 floods. In July 2007 Oxford
suffered the worst floods for many years with rainfall levels being the highest since record began.
1,631 homes and 72 businesses were flooded across West Oxfordshire, costing millions in
damages and repairs. As expected the lower corner closest to the river has been the worse
effected part of the site. The type of flooding that occurs is fluvial. This is when main river channels
are unable to cope with the volume of water in the river systems. River water over tops channel
banks and excess water is stored in the immediate area, either flood plains or built up areas. This
is likely to occur at the same time as flash flooding which is where road gullies cannot drain water
away and so it collects in local low points in the area.
28
29
Information from Oxford Alliance
Environmental Agency map of flood risk maps.environmental-agency.gov.uk
William Hancock
Page 104
The risk of flooding can be calculated and quantified using previous flood data . If the
30
floods that occurred in 2000 and 2003 were representative of a 1 in 15 years flood and the 2007 of
1 in 18; then using an example period of 6 years the risk of another 1 in 15 flood is 33.9%.
Figure 6.7.2 shows the typical flood that is likely to occur at least twice in the rollercoaster’s
lifetime. This shows how necessary and important good flood defences will be to protect the roller
coaster against damage by flooding. There already exists the Oxford Flood Alliance (OFA) which
advocates many strategies to reduce the flood risk in the Oxford area. It was set up by local people
after the 2007 floods to help combat the flood risk. It is important to work with this group and try to
ensure the measures that are being taken to protect the roller coaster are working towards the
same goals as the OFA. Alongside this there are many government policies to ensure that new
developments are designed to alleviate the causes of flooding. One policy for sustainable
drainage31 quotes ‘a paved area on new development normally reduces the amount of water that
can infiltrate into the ground and so increases the surface water run-off into local drains. The
planning policies specifically require developers to demonstrate that they have made appropriate
provision for surface water drainage that will mitigate any adverse impact from surface run-off.’ Any
building on an undeveloped flood plain, such as Oxpens Meadow, has additional criteria to ensure
the level of flooding is not increased in the local or greater area.
To reduce the negative impact of building on a flood plain the design of the roller coaster is
aimed at keeping as much of the meadow available to act as a flood plain. The roller coaster track
is at a minimum of 2m from the ground which allows the ride to be operational in mild to moderate
flooding events. Allowing the meadow to flood reduces the amount of water that would be
displaced by the development and so would not increase the severity of flooding in the immediate
area. Providing a large grass surface allows infiltration of water into the soil.
An important part of flood defence is to have accurate real time data to calculate the current
risk. It would be useful information to have access to data such as the water level of the river and
flow rate. This is possible by using data that are currently collected from Osney Lock, which is a
short distance upstream. River levels are taken every 15 minutes and recorded.
30
31
American National weather service Forecast Office
Section 4.12; Alleviating causes of flooding Oxford.gov.uk/Direct/FloodingInfo
William Hancock
Page 105
The river levels either side of the weir can be used in the weir equation tocalculate the flow
over the weir, B =
CD ∗F∗G H.I
.
*JK.I
The highest river level that has ever been recorded was 3.93m on
25/07/2007. Taking into account the sites datum of 54.7mAOD and comparing to the map in
section 1.2, at the highest flood levels every area would be expected to be flooded except for part
of the yellow and all of the red and orange sections.
The Environmental Agency has put forward a flood defence proposal strategy with nine
different options. The choice that has been opted for here involves two main engineering projects.
The first is a new watercourse in West Oxford and the second is a possible flood storage area
upstream of Oxford. The second project is a long term scheme with work being planned to start in
2025. These would have the effect of alleviating the flood risk, but not combating it completely.
There are several different parts to the planned flood protection scheme for our site. An
initial decision was made to locate the building which houses the launch mechanism in the top
corner of the site nearest Oxpens Road. The cost of the launching mechanism is a large proportion
of the total cost of the ride and so would be very expensive to replace and repair. Therefore placing
the mechanism in the section of the site which is least liable to flooding reduces the risk of
damage. For the same reason the loading platform and all the control equipment for the ride will be
housed in the same building. The building will need to be designed so that it is completely flood
proof. To allow natural ventilation through a building several air bricks are built into the walls,
usually at ground level. Air bricks could let in up to 50,000 litres of water in an hour, so during flood
warnings these will require fitted air brick covers which are water tight. There is a simple method
for water proofing the actual brickwork, which is to apply a specialised outdoor paint using a spray
or roller. This reduces the risk of water soaking through and also provides some thermal insulation.
Another area at risk from flooding within the building is the toilets and other plumbing areas. During
heavy flooding many sewers are unable to cope with the abnormal weather conditions causing a
backflow of foul contaminated water which could possibly flood into a building increasing damage.
To solve this problem all the water works will be fitted with a non-return valve shown in figure 6.7.3,
to minimise the risk of any backflow.
William Hancock
Page 106
During light flooding the aim is to keep the ride operational, so as not to lose any potential
customers. The advantage of having the loading and launching mechanisms inside is that they are
not so easily affected by the rain and flooding. The rest of Oxpens Meadow is being allowed to
flood and a mountable barrier will be placed as shown in figure 6.7.4 to stop the flood water from
spreading out on to the road and entrance to the rollercoaster. There are many types of barriers
and the one that is most applicable is the flip up flood barrier32. This can be operated by a single
switch or automatically in response to data being sent from Osney Lock. The barrier is fully
recessed whilst not in use so it doesn’t ruin the aesthetics of the site. Movement and weight
sensors prevent barriers opening if the entrance is obstructed. The presence of an additional visual
alarm system provides a further safeguard.
Figure 6.7.3: Non return valve
Figure 6.7.4: Map showing building
plus location of planned flood
barriers in blue and places where
door protection is required in pink
Figure 6.7.5: Types of flood defences; flip up barrier (left) door guard (right)
Launch
Loading area
During heavy and extreme flooding it will be unadvisable for tourists to be travelling around
Oxford. This means that although there is no need to make the ride operational it is nevertheless
essential to protect the ride from damage. The entrances to the building will be fitted with
mountable door barriers which completely block the water from entering.33
Another method of reducing flood risk is to increase the drainage from the meadow into the
River Thames. This could be achieved by using a series of channels and connecting pipes. This
will not however, be effective as the main risk is fluvial flooding, where the water is from the river. It
would be better to try and increase the flow of the river through dredging, clearing the river bed of
obstacles and regular maintenance of the channel walls.
32
33
Based on model manufacture by Flood control International
Product from Flood-Master
William Hancock
Page 107
6.8: Noise Pollution
Noise pollution from any new development has to be carefully monitored and strict
guidelines have been put in place. Planning Policy 24 (PPG.24) gives guidance to the local
authorities on the use of their planning powers to minimize the adverse impact of noise. It states
that housing and residential areas are noise sensitive locations and that the nature and character
of the noise source should be taken into account, as well as its level. Sudden impulses and
irregular noise sources will require special consideration. There are several health effects that can
be caused by noise pollution such as hearing impairment, hypertension, annoyance and sleep
disturbance.34
Figure 6.8.135 predicts the reaction from the
community to an increase in noise pollution. A
reaction of widespread complaints or threat of legal
action is undesirable, so the aim is to keep the
increase of noise below 10dB. It is important to try
Figure 6.8.1: Graph of community reaction to noise
and maintain a good relationship with the community and the immediate residential area.
The noise sources that are expected can be classified into two main areas; mechanical
noise and human noise. Mechanical noise is the sound created by the launch and breaking
mechanisms, and the sound of the carts travelling along the track. On a busy day these noises
would be fairly constant with regular pulses of elevated noise. The second is human noise. This is
created by the customers and possibly staff as well. There will be low level background noise
created by customers talking excitedly and moving around whilst queuing, or by staff
communicating to each other or with customers to ensure safe operation of the ride. During the
ride however customers will feel the thrill and adrenaline of the many turns and high acceleration of
the launch and are expected to scream and shout. This would result from the unfamiliarity and the
overload of the senses being experienced. Many people scream just because they are enjoying the
ride and it enhances their experience. This noise source will always occur and methods need to be
created to reduce its impact.
34
‘Noise Exposure and public health’ Passichier-Vermeer 2000
Graph from study by Inter-noise, C.W Menge, H Miller Miller & Hanson 2002 ‘Abatement strategies for
rollercoaster noise’
35
William Hancock
Page 108
These noise sources are intensified by several factors. The high elevation of the ride, up to
a maximum of 18m, allows the noise to propagate and reach to a wider area. The ride is
operational throughout most of the day. This constant level of noise along with the periodic noise
created by each cart travelling down the track increases the possible effect of a negative
community reaction. Another time when noise is an important factor is during the construction of
the rollercoaster. The heavy machinery and construction traffic will increase the level of noise and
will be carefully dealt with to limit any negative impact. This is outlined in section 5.1.
One easy method to analyse the noise at each location is to use a sound meter. There are
several sound meter applications available for smart phones. These were used across the site to
give an estimate of the current levels of noise. Figure
74
6.8.2 shows a screen shot of the sound meter used.
58
57
The values plotted on figure 6.8.3 are the average in
60 (65) 61
dB to illustrate the current sound distribution. The
55
50
Figure 6.8.2: (top)
Sound meter
Figure 6.8.3: (right)
Sound distribution map
53
data in brackets are for when a train was passing by.
Before and after construction a detailed sound map
52 (85)
using specialist equipment would be created to show
the impact of the ride on noise pollution.
There are several methods to protect against noise pollution. These can be grouped into
three main types; the layout and design of the site, the engineering design and administrative
measures. Engineering aims to reduce the production of noise at the source, whilst the design tries
to limit the effect of the sound on the immediate area. Administrative measures are to ensure the
impact of the noise is reduced on the community.
The red highlighted area shows where the closest noise
sensitive residential area lies. This is where complaints are
more likely to occur from and where protective measures
are most vital.
Line of natural barrier
Figure 6.8.3: Residential area close to site
William Hancock
Page 109
The first noise abatement measure is to install double glazing in all of the houses within the
area highlighted in figure 6.8.3. This insulates the buildings against noise. Resonance in the cavity
can however reduce the effectiveness of the insulation. Therefore the frequency of the noise
source has to be taken into account. From PPG.24 the typical noise difference from double glazing
of inside compared to outside is around 30dB. Researching from Zenith windows an approximate
cost of double glazing the windows would be around £5,000 per house. An estimate from the map
of the area suggests around 100 would be in the area for potential double glazing. This introduces
an overall addition of ~£500,000 to the budget.
Secondly, an increased natural barrier of trees and shrubs is planned to be planted along
the green highlighted area in figure 6.8.3. Noise reduction is achieved by a combination of
deflection and absorption of the sound. Conifers or evergreen broadleaf plants provide the best all
year round noise reduction, due to the densely packed leaves which inhibits sound propagation.
Trees also create a visual barrier, which reduces the perception of noise. It has been suggested
that people are less conscious of noise if they cannot see the source. Other deciduous trees can
be planted for seasonal variation for purely aesthetical reasons. A mathematical model can be
created involving the modelling of the second-order linear
partial differential wave equation. A detailed numerical
simulation has been conducted on the effect of trees on noise
barrier performance36. Results from this study validate the use
of the barrier. The trees will be obtained from a sustainable
Figure 6.8.4: Example Natural Barrier
source.
An awareness of the effect of noise pollution was present throughout the design of the entire
rollercoaster track. Research was conducted into many different factors that influence noise
pollution. (See Appendix 1 for graphs of the study that was conducted). The graph in Appendix 1.2
shows how the orientation of the cart affects the levels of noise that are recorded. From this the
track was designed so that the cart is tilted away from the houses during the stretch near the
residential area. This causes the sound to be projected away from the houses and back towards
the rest of the site. In some roller coasters plastic tubing has been built around parts of the track to
36
‘Numerical Simulation of the effect of trees on Noise Barrier Performance’ T Renterghem D Botteldooren 2003
William Hancock
Page 110
act as a sound barrier. This reflects any noise internally and reduces the amount that is spread.
For this to be effective the scariest parts will need to be covered. Due to the high thrill factor of the
ride that has been designed, a large proportion would have to be covered. This would have a
negative effect of blocking the view of the riders.
Taking this idea of encasing the source of the sound, it was decided that the launch and
breaking mechanisms should be housed inside a building. These were the areas where the noise
was predicted and expected to be greatest. Figure 6.7.4 in the previous section shows where the
building will be situated. This is also where the loading and unloading of customers take place. Not
only will the noise from the queuing customers be contained, but their comfort will be improved as
they will be waiting in the warm and dry, with themed activities to amuse them.
The first launch is into a loop which is likely to create a lot of noise from excited customers.
The graph in Appendix 1.3 shows how the addition of passengers to a roller coaster increases the
noise levels above 800Hz. To reduce this effect the launch is designed in the part furthest away
from the residential area. When sound travels through a medium its intensity diminishes. Scattering
is the reflection of sound in other directions, and absorption is the conversion of sound into other
sources. The combined effect of these is called attenuation. The amplitude change can be
expressed as:
= L MNO , where P =
*∗QRSTUCVUWCXWUYR∗(Z[\]^\CR)_
+∗Z`^UQQ\WUYR∗(WX^QWa\\Q)b
Ao is the unattenuated amplitude, z is the distance travelled by the sound and P is the
attenuation coefficient in neper per metre. Stokes’ Law for sound attenuation shows how if the
source is placed further away the amplitude of sound will be less.
As previously discussed, there are a number of engineering methods to reduce the
production of noise at the source. Section 3.10 explains how the material of the wheel influences
the level of noise created. The softer polyurethane wheels reduce the vibrations of the cart by
absorbing any small defects and bumps along the rail. This also has the effect of reducing the
noise caused by the wheels rolling over the track. Another study has shown that a support of
circular section produces an average of 10-15dB less sound energy than that with a rectangular
section, see Appendix 1.1. This is another reason for the choice of circular section for the ride. The
William Hancock
Page 111
difference is due to the effect of the steel rail support acting as an acoustic radiator, this can be
lessened by the introduction of damping in between the supports and the track.
There have been several methods to try to reduce the damping by filling the beams and the
rails of the track with different materials. Sand, pea gravel and lead shots were tested and all
successfully decreased the effect, see Appendix 1.4. Filling the rails and the beams led to a
reduction of around 15dB across the spectrum. The weight and movement of the particles opposes
the motion of the track, limiting the degree of resonance that occurs. During testing sand was
found to be difficult to handle, as it didn’t flow well and became rigid over time. A mixture of pea
lead and gravel is used as an alternative and has the desired effect. The disadvantage is that it
increases the weight of the track, so requiring larger foundations and stronger supports.
Finally, an important part of noise management is how the ride interacts with the local
residents. Administrative measures can be put in place to limit the possible disturbance.
Operational hours of the ride will be at reasonable times; mainly ensuring closing time is before
21.00hrs at the latest, to limit any disruption to sleeping. Only on special themed nights such as
Halloween would the ride be open significantly later than the usual closing time. It is important to
keep in good contact with the residents by holding regular meetings to find solutions to reduce any
problems and to try and improve the quality of their local area.
Through these different measures the noise pollution from the rollercoaster will be below
the target levels. This therefore should not cause any significant disturbance to the local area and
a good relationship can be maintained with minimal complaints.
6.9: Bomb Risk
There are many potential risks to a new development; some of these are due to the historical
activity in the past. During WWII much of England was targeted by the Luftwaffe for bombing raids.
Fortunately Oxford was never targeted and according to the home office only two high explosive
bombs fell on the entire Borough of Oxford. This information was confirmed by lodging an enquiry
with Bactech in November 2011, a firm specialising in analysing potential explosive risk. The only
possible risk to the site is potential explosive contamination and comes from the early 17th century.
This is due to the presence of a Saltpetre works (gunpowder) approximately 200m north of the site.
Any risk associated with this is deemed however to be negligible.
Charlie Hill
Page 112
6.10: Transport
With 9 million tourists per year, and 200,000 residents of Oxford37, Launch of the Rings aims to
provide an additional attraction for those already in the city, and to encourage new visitors to the
city of Oxford. It is not envisaged that the roller coaster will entice casual visitors who are just
looking for the thrill of the ride, without wanting to visit Oxford. This goal is beneficial for a number
of reasons; the local economy benefits from increased visitor numbers, visiting for longer durations,
which causes increased demand for hotels, shops, pubs, and restaurants. The other benefit is that
little needs to be changed in terms of the wider transport infrastructure.
Oxford, being an internationally renowned city of culture, has an estimated daily population
throughput in the height of summer of up to 700,000. As the current transport infrastructure can
support this number of people leaving the city, even if every visitor to our roller coaster arrived just
for the roller coaster, the 2,500 people per day maximum throughput38 would result in a 0.3%
change in population turnover, which can be considered negligible. Of slightly more concern,
figures from the 2007 Oxford Visitor survey39 indicate that 63% of the population arrived through
private transport, where only 16% arrived by bus, and 11% arrived by train. These figures are of
primary concern for Oxford tourism, however, the large amount of people arriving via private
transport has led to numerous park and ride schemes being run around the town. These systems
have helped reduce traffic in the town, reducing congestion and crowding.
The current traffic infrastructure is well suited for tourism. Oxford train station has connections
to London Paddington, every 15 minutes40, and to Birmingham New Street, every 30 minutes.
From these stations connections to anywhere else in the country are possible. London Paddington
also provides easy access to Gatwick and Heathrow airports, both accessible within an hour and a
half of Oxford, providing a global target market. The train station is a ten minute walk from our site.
Gloucester Green national bus station provides bus services to major airports, numerous
services to London (every 10 - 20 minutes)41, and services to attractions such as Cambridge. The
bus station is a 15 minute walk from our site. For visitors arriving by car, many will want to use the
37
See section 9.4 for origin of figures
See section 9.5 for origin of figures
39
Tourism South East, Oxford Visitor Survey 2007
40
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk - figures correct February 2012
41
http://www.oxfordtube.com/tubetimes.php - figures correct February 2012
38
Charlie Hill
Page 113
park and ride system - the flexibility of being able to park on the edge of town. The park and ride
systems run constant bus routes around the town, these buses can usually be caught at five
minute intervals.
Having established that the impact of Launch of the Rings on the wider Oxford transport
network will be minimal, one must now consider the impact of the roller coaster on a more local
scale. It is expected that most
visitors to the roller coaster
will
arrive
on
foot.
As
mentioned above, the site is
located ten minutes from the
train
station
and
fifteen
minutes from the bus station.
Figure
6.10.142
shows
the
location of our site (green),
and its proximity from the
Figure 6.10.1: Map showing location of ice rink compared to Oxford attractions
railway
station,
blue,
Gloucester Green bus station,
red, and the typical tourist
attractions of Christ Church
college, white, 10 minute walk,
and the Radcliffe Camera,
yellow, a 15 minute walk43.
The central position of our
Figure 6.10.2: Map showing proposed foot routes to the site
roller coaster within Oxford is further beneficial in that tourists should not be put off by the time
taken to get to the roller coaster. By combining strategies of using the tourism base already in
42
43
Map courtesy of http://www.google.com/maps
All walking time figures taken from http://www.google.com/maps
Charlie Hill
Page 114
Oxford, and then encouraging visitors to walk to the roller coaster, the environmental footprint of
the roller coaster should be minimised.
To aid tourists finding their way to the roller coaster, the construction of three sign posted
routes is proposed, from strategic positions in the town. The routes that would be sign posted are
highlighted in figure 6.10.244. Each of the red, blue and green lines highlight a proposed new route.
The blue line runs directly from the train station, whereas the green and red lines run from city
centre locations. All lines terminate at the entrance to the site, on Oxpens road.
Signs for the route would be in keeping with Oxford, and usual tourist attraction signs. The
signs would be placed at frequent intervals so as to make it clear for visitors the route they should
follow. We would also approach Oxford tourism to get our roller coaster added to their tourism
maps as a potential tourist attraction.
Visual analysis of the route suggests that the
minimum pavement width of either route is sufficient to
accommodate two people simultaneously. This part of the
route is between the train station, and the site, and is
shown in figure 6.10.3. The rest of the route, both to the
train station, and into town has sufficient width to
Figure 6.10.3: Pavement leading to site
accommodate three people. Pavements on this side of town are currently negligibly quiet, and thus
other users do not need to be considered.
Taking our maximum daily throughput as 2500 people in a 10 hour day, one might estimate
daily throughput as leading to a potential maximum of 400 people per hour travelling to and from
the site. Should those people all travel to the site on foot, we might consider a maximum down any
of the routes as being 75% of the maximum, or 300 people per hour. That is five people per
minute, maximum, walking either way down the pavements to and from the site. Considering these
figures, it is clear to see that a pavement width of 2 people is more than sufficient for use as an
entrance to the roller coaster. This means that no changes need to be made to the pavements in
the region.
44
Map courtesy of http://www.google.com/maps
Charlie Hill
Page 115
Another consideration, with an increased amount of pedestrians, is road crossings. Largely
pedestrianized Oxford city centre presents no problems in this respect, and thus most of the routes
heading out of the city centre are suitable for pedestrian use. However, the installation of a Toucan
crossing on the Oxpens road, in front of the entrance to the site, would be needed to ensure
pedestrian safety. Although Oxpens road is relatively quiet, a Toucan crossing should ensure safe
and easy access to any potential customer, regardless of age and ability. The route from the train
station crosses the busy Park End Street. This street already has a series of Toucan crossings to
help tourists and locals cross from the train station. For the increase in visitor numbers predicted
above, this system of Toucan crossings should be sufficient to ensure the safety of the increased
visitor numbers due to the roller coaster.
On a related note, we would also approach Oxford bus
tour operators. The map shown below in figure 6.10.4,
taken from Oxford City Tours website45, shows that the
City Sightseeing tour already passes close to the ice rink,
and thus our site. We would approach this tour company,
asking if they would incorporate a further stop on their
route on the corner between Speedwell Street and
Greyfriars Street, where they would advertise our roller
Figure 6.10.4: Current Oxford bus tour
coaster, hopefully also including our roller coaster as a
highlighted attraction on their map, similar perhaps to the highlighting of Oxford Castle Unlocked,
that can be seen in figure 6.10.4.
Local bus routes also stop close to our site, with the castle street bus stop about a 3 minute walk
from our site. The nearest park and ride bus stop is from the Redbridge park and ride, and is about
a five minute walk from our site, however, the bus route passes close to the ice rink, so again, we
would talk to the operator concerning the possibility of adding a new stop, closer to the roller
coaster.
45
http://www.citysightseeingoxford.com/tour_route_map.html - accessed February 2012
Charlie Hill
Page 116
For visitors deciding to arrive at the roller coaster by bike, two cycle parks are proposed: a
small cycle park at the entrance to the site, and a larger cycle park behind the ice rink. These parks
would provide relatively secure storage, where bikes could be locked against frames.
For larger groups of visitors, a coach park is situated next to the ice rink, and next to our roller
coaster sight. This would be available to visitors, via prior booking through the Oxford city council.
Numerous other coach parks would also be available throughout Oxford, in line with the high
summer demand for tourism that Oxford faces annually.
No onsite parking would be made available for visitors wishing to visit the site by car. These
visitors would have to use current parking facilities, potentially including the Westgate car park, five
minute walk, and the Hythe Bridge Street car park, also a five minute walk. This is part of an
attempt to discourage car use in the city centre.
In conclusion, the aim of the roller coaster is to utilise the large, existing target audience
already in Oxford, and provide a further attraction. The number of additional tourists attracted by a
single roller coaster is likely to be small, though our maximum capacity limit means that even if all
of our visitors were unique just for the roller coaster, the effect on the larger transport infrastructure
is likely to be small. Within the town, changes to bus routes, maps, and signposting have been
discussed, leading to increased accessibility of the site. Even at the height of operation, visitor
numbers are not sufficiently great as to require changes in pavement width along Oxpens road.
The installation of a Toucan crossing leading to the site is recommended. As vehicle access is
limited, there is no requirement for any road changes due to the development. Overall, the
transport disruption due to Launch of the Rings is minimal, and the existing infrastructure is
sufficient to cope with the visitor numbers that we expect. There is no reason why transport should
damage the feasibility of the proposed roller coaster.
SECTION CONCLUSION
Launch of the Rings aims to cause minimal disruption to the park upon which it is sited. Through
careful planning, the natural flood plain has been maintained, and noise that might disrupt
neighbouring houses has been minimised. The development also has negligible impact on
transport in the city, and pedestrians will be able to safely access the site.
Page 117
7: SAFETY
A roller coaster is a very complicated and hazardous ride, with the potential to cause serious injury or even death. Employees of the ride, riders
and indeed the general public in the vicinity of the ride all have the potential to be harmed. It is therefore important to actively manage the risk of an
accident and take all reasonable measures to ensure the ride is as safe as possible. This section fulfils this by comprising a full risk assessment as
well as details of the ride’s thorough maintenance programme and the legal position regarding safety.
7.1: Risk Assessment
The probability and severity of hazards are each measured out of five. The risk rating is the product of the probability and the severity. A risk
rating of five or less indicates low risk, from six to ten moderate risk, from eleven to fifteen high risk and above fifteen extremely high risk.
Hazard
Who is
Affected?
Original Risk
Probability
Mitigation Measures
Severity
Risk
Residual Risk
Probability
Severity
Rating
Slips, trips, falls,
Maintenance
cuts or other minor
personnel
4
2
8
Rating
Employ good lighting in maintenance
clean up spills immediately. Have first
maintenance
aid kit present in shed.
Ride operator
carts or person hit
and riders
2
1
2
1
3
3
shed. Keep floor areas clear and
injuries during
Collision between
Risk
3
3
9
Include safety system so ride
automatically shuts down before track
Page 118
by cart when adding
can be moved to allow trains to
or removing carts
access maintenance shed.
Assault by member
Ride operator
3
2
6
of the public
Train staff in conflict resolution. Have
2
2
4
2
4
8
1
4
4
1
4
4
2
2
4
2
3
6
1
2
2
first aid kit present in station.
Fall on tracks or hit
Ride operator
by train in station
and riders
3
4
12
Gates in station to hold riders away
from track. Safe areas staff must
stand for ride to operate.
Electrocution
Ride operator
3
4
12
Insulate all electrics and use circuit
breakers
Hit by train on
Public in park
4
4
16
outside track
Hit by object falling
hit a person. Monitor park with CCTV.
Public in park
5
2
10
from cart
Fire in building
Fence off all areas where train could
No loose objects allowed on ride. Nets
placed to catch falling objects.
Riders, staff
3
5
15
No smoking in building. Emergency
and people
exits clearly signed. Good fire alarm
queuing
and suppression systems installed.
Power cut in
Riders and
building
people
5
2
10
Have emergency power supply.
Page 119
queuing
Assault/Illness/Accid
People
ent
queuing,
associated signage. Have first aid
staff, riders
trained staff and first aid kit available.
Illness on Ride
Riders
5
3
3
3
15
9
Monitor area with CCTV and
People with pre-existing medical
3
2
6
2
2
4
1
5
5
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
4
4
1
5
5
conditions not allowed on ride. Have
first aid trained staff available.
Restraint system
Riders
3
5
15
failure
Backup system with manual clip.
Enforce maximum and minimum rider
sizes.
Launch breakdown
Riders
4
2
8
Good maintenance. Have safe
method of evacuating train.
Ride does not
Riders
3
3
9
complete circuit
Collision between
Good maintenance. Have safe
method of evacuating train.
Riders
3
5
15
trains
Install bumpers on trains. Use control
system to ensure only one train can
enter each block at a time.
Brakes failure
Riders
3
5
15
Good maintenance. Use failsafe
Page 120
braking system.
Electrocution and
Trespassers
3
other accidents
4
12
Secure ride area, turn off all electrics
2
2
4
and monitor ride by CCTV at night.
Following application of the mitigation we have only three risks classified as a moderate risk, with the rest low risk. This is an acceptable level of
risk and so this mitigation is sufficient. Further risk assessments will be conducted at regular intervals to identify any new risks that arise and attempt
to reduce current risks as far as possible.
Page 121
7.2: Maintenance
A key part of ensuring the safety of a roller coaster is a strict maintenance regime. This is
underlined by the detailed requirements of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in this area as
set out in the document “Fairgrounds and amusement parks: Guidance on safe practice”1. This
maintenance plan is entirely based on the principles set out in this document. The case for a strong
maintenance programme is furthered by the fact that even excluding the safety benefits there is an
economic incentive to follow good maintenance practice. This is because reduced maintenance
results in increased down time of the ride which can be very costly, particularly if it occurs at a
peak time.
The maintenance programme consists of three strands. The first of these is a daily inspection
which must take place each day before the roller coaster enters into public use. As a minimum,
one complete ride cycle must take place in addition to a thorough inspection of all brakes, safety
barriers, safety harnesses, pins and other critical aspects of the ride. This should be a thorough
check and if there is any doubt about the good running of any part the ride must not be opened.
The next part of the regime is the periodic inspection. This will be conducted once every four
weeks, at a time of the week when the roller coaster is not heavily used so as to minimise
disruption for users. This is a more thorough check than the daily check and involves checking the
ride all over in minute detail for any potential problems. This check will always be conducted by a
highly qualified individual following closely all procedures specified by manufacturers.
Finally, an annual inspection of the entire ride will be conducted by an external inspector. This
will be arranged with the Amusement Device Safety Council who operate the Amusement Device
Inspection Scheme (ADIPS). This scheme registers inspectors as competent to perform an annual
inspection of a ride. We will ensure that an ADIPS registered inspector has unfettered access to
the ride as required and will implement any recommendations arising as a result of inspection
before the roller coaster is reopened to the public. In order to minimise disruption, the annual
inspection will take place over the winter months when the roller coaster is closed to the public.
1
nd
HSE, Fairgrounds and amusement parks: Guidance on safe practice, 2 edition, 2007, HSE.
Page 122
7.3: Legislation
As the owner of a roller coaster there is a legal obligation towards safety under the Health and
Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSW Act). There is a duty to maintain the ride in a safe condition as
well as operate it safely. Under the terms of the Act this requirement extends to the safety of both
employees and members of the public whether or not they are using the ride. It is therefore
extremely important that safety procedures are implemented and followed correctly.
The HSE has produced a document “Fairgrounds and amusement parks: Guidance on safe
practice” which attempts to aid ride owners to comply with the law. Whilst the document is not
legally binding the expectation is that if it is followed then that will be sufficient to comply with the
HSW Act. It was therefore decided to follow the guidance in full throughout the design, build and
operational life of our roller coaster.
An additional legal requirement is for the roller coaster to comply with standards set out by the
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). The standard which applies to our roller coaster is
EN13814:2004 “Fairground Amusement Park Machinery”. The ride will also demonstrate best
practice by complying with certain voluntary standards. These include ASTM International’s F-24
standard “Fairground amusement park machinery and structures – safety” and membership of the
International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions which has safety regulations. To
ensure that these standards are being met the detailed design and construction of the roller
coaster will take place in partnership with companies with a proven track record of working within
these standards which will be required to be demonstrated as part of the tender process.
One crucial element of the standards which is sufficiently overarching that it has been
necessary to take account of it during the outline design is the maximum accelerations that can be
applied to riders during the ride. These are measured as G-forces in ‘Gs’ with 1G equivalent to
10ms-2 of acceleration. The maximum permitted positive vertical G-force is 6G, negative vertical is
2G and lateral is 1.8G. However forces close to these maxima are generally considered more
uncomfortable than exciting for riders so design is limited to 4G positive vertical and 1.5G negative
vertical. Lateral acceleration has been minimised as far as possible. In order to make our ride as
thrilling as possible G-forces have been kept as high as possible within these limits.
Page 123
Section Conclusion
As can be seen from the risk assessment the risks associated with the roller coaster can be
sufficiently mitigated that they are reduced to an acceptable. Further safety enhancements are
made by the full and comprehensive maintenance routine that will be in place. This will have
economic as well as safety benefits, reducing the amount of down time the ride experiences.
Finally, procedures are in place to ensure that the legal obligation to safety is both met and
exceeded.
Charlie Hill
Page 124
8: THEME
8.1: Commercial
Oxford is a city typically known for large numbers of educated tourists. Perhaps those after a
cultural retreat, or a quiet weekend looking around historic buildings. Perhaps not so well known for
those fun-loving, thrill-seeking adventurers who are typically going to embark on a roller coaster.
As such, the theme of Launch of the Rings needs to tie together the culture of Oxford, providing a
link with the city. The decisions about theme were thus dominated with the reputation of Oxford,
and discussion of what Oxford is known for.
A Lord of the Rings theme1 was eventually decided. Due to the recent cinematic releases of the
Lord of the Rings trilogy, and the upcoming cinematic release of the Hobbit, it was decided that this
theme is relevant to our target audience. The success of the films continues the long running
success of the books, leading the belief that the Lord of the Rings
theme has longevity, even after the initial film excitement has died
down.
The link with Oxford is somewhat more subtle. The ride would
play on Tolkien2, potentially having part of the themed indoor Figure 8.1.1: Lord of the Rings theme
section, moving out of the former Merton Professor of English’s study, and into the world which he
created. The Tolkien Oxford link is relevant in the city, with the “Eagle and Child” pub celebrating
its frequenter through plaques and advertising. Reference is also made to Tolkien on many of the
guided tours, both bus and foot that occur in the city.
Only offering a small roller coaster, Launch of the Rings would not expect to attain the sole
rights for a Lord of the Rings based roller coaster. Aside of this, rumours have circulated that
Universal Studios, Florida, are planning their own Lord of the Rings attraction 3. Theme parks are
generally built by the studios owning the rights to films, therefore there is little precedent for
licensing, however, a franchise where 2% of the ride profits were payable to Warner, who currently
own the film rights, seems likely. This figure has been used in all subsequent calculations.
1
Image shown courtesy of http://www.picgifs.com/wallpapers/lord-of-the-rings/
Tolkein information courtesy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien
3
http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/08/17/universal-considering-a-lord-of-the-rings-theme-park - accessed
February 2012
2
William Hancock
Page 125
8.2: Implementation
The main place in which the roller coaster will be themed is the indoor section of the ride. The
indoor section has a slow start to build the anticipation of the ride. This will be increased by the
presence of characters and other related models.
Figure
8.2.1 shows a map of the indoor section. The ride experience
starts during the queue for the ride. Throughout the queue
Reception Area
Photo Desk
Lord of the Rings based activities will be displayed on the
walls. A few examples are quizzes and interesting facts and
stories from the book. Situated at intervals along the queuing
Queuing
area
Loading
platform
area will be small games consoles built into televisions. The
cost of games consoles has dramatically decreased over the
Launch
Figure 8.2.1: Map of indoor section of ride
past few years so this is economically viable.
The system for queuing is novel. To allow customers to use and enjoy the activities each
customer will be given a ticket with a number and time written on it. On a busy day they will be
allocated a slot and have to attend at their assigned time. It will allow the customers an opportunity
to enjoy Oxpens Meadow and the other facilities whilst waiting to go on the ride. There will be a
small amount of waiting time to build up the suspense of the ride. The design of the ticket received
by the customers is unique. It can be folded round and attached to itself to form a cardboard ring
which the customer can wear. This will act as a memento and also advertising to others.
Figure 8.2.2:
An example ticket
that can form a
model ring
There will be small details which will all add up to link into the theme. For example, each of
the seats in the cart will be named after protagonists from the book. One cart will have each of the
four hobbits and another with the other characters from the Fellowship of the Ring. During the
indoor section there will be an animation of Gandalf talking directly to the riders warning them of
the perils of their journey with the ring ahead. This again will build up excitement and anticipation.
William Hancock
Page 126
As the riders are on their back much of the animation will be projected on to the ceiling. One
example is from existing roller coasters such as Saw at Thorpe Park. Here riders are passed close
to a spinning saw, giving the impression they will ride into it, before turning away at the last minute.
This gives a different type of adrenaline rush. A similar design will be used on the corner of the
indoor section where a ‘scary’ looking model orc swings an axe at the
riders but the track curves round to the side so missing the riders. The
indoor section will be in the dark with lights illuminating different parts of the
themed section. There will also be loud speakers to create a full
Figure 8.2.3: Example Orc
atmosphere and almost disorientate the riders.
There is a famous poem in Tolkien’s ‘Lord of the Rings’; ‘One ring to rule them all, one ring
to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.’ This will be read out during
the pause before the launch. The carts will then be launched out
of the indoor section through five large golden rings straight into
the loop, as shown in figure 8.2.4. This change from dark into the
light will have the effect of disorientating the riders, enhancing
the experience when travelling around the loop.
Figure 8.2.4: Launch through five rings
Situated at the end of the first loop will be an automatic camera which will take a photo of
the riders as they pass along the track. This will be available to buy at the desk shown in figure
8.2.1, mounted on a Lord of the Rings background as a souvenir of their trip.
Underneath the ride, there is space in part of the meadow nearest the building. This will be
divided into portions which businesses can hire out to situate mini stalls, adding another source of
revenue for the rollercoaster. Typical stalls could include balloon vendors, food merchants or
fairground games. These could be linked to Lord of the Rings as well.
Lord of the Rings was published in 1954 and has maintained its popularity since then. The
indoor section can be refurbished if the theme becomes outdated or a newer style is deemed more
appropriate. This allows the roller coaster to keep up to date and remain popular. 3D technology
has recently become commonly used in cinemas. This could be adapted for use during the ride to
increase the overall experience even more.
Max Jackson
Page 127
8.3: Ring Location
It has been decided that a large-scale model of the ring used in the film should be utilized to
strongly highlight the theme of the ride to potential customers and draw them from afar. If the
public were to travel to the site in order to look at the impressive gold ring, it is very likely that they
would pay for a ride. In light of this, several possible
options were explored for the placement of the ring.
Firstly a large ring could be placed in either the
loop or the helix. These two work particularly well
because of the geometry of the elements, especially
the circular 540°helix turn which completely encircles
the ring at a more or less constant distance from it.
Figure 8.3.1: Ring in Helix Turn
The ring appears to be a part of the ride and looks
completely at home in these positions.
A large ring atop the cobra roll was also
considered. Although it doesn’t possess quite the
same level of tessellation as the previous two
examples, having the ring at the highest point of the
ride will mean that it would be visible from further
Figure 8.3.2: Ring in Loop
away, with the possibility of drawing in yet more
customers.
Next a slightly smaller ring in the inside section
of the track was considered. This section of the track
is vitally important in enhancing the theme of the ride
and building anticipation for the lunch. It will already
Figure 8.3.3: Ring in Cobra Roll
contain many props and so the ring would fit in rather
well. Furthermore as the passengers are on their backs and performing a banked turn around the
ring, they will be able to look in some detail at the script on the ring which reads "One Ring to rule
Max Jackson
Page 128
them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them." in the
‘Black Speech’ script4.
A final option was having 5 consecutive rings,
through which the riders are launched. As they are
thrusted from the dark indoor section of the track
into the bright outdoors, the 5 rings (which
symbolise the ‘5 rings’ from the books , will
enhance the feeling of speed and acceleration.
In the end it was agreed that a combination of
Figure 8.3.4: Ring in Indoor Banked Turn
two of the above ideas would be best, namely the 5
rings at launch and the helix ring. Combining these
two fits well with the books, where the 5 rings and
in particular the ‘One ring to rule them all’ feature.
Furthermore both of these options are very
pleasing to look at, while also improving the ride as
a whole for the passengers.
Figure 8.3.5: Five Rings Around Launch
8.4: Building Design
Three options were explored for the design of
the building to be used to house the indoor section of
track. The purpose of these designs is to enhance
the theme of the ride, possibly transporting riders to
the scene of the film before they experience the thrill
of the ride, whilst complimenting unobtrusively the
views associated with Oxford. Good, well thought out
scenery has the potential to draw in customers, and
keep them coming back in just the same manner as
Figure 8.4.1: ‘Ruins of Osgiliath’ Building Design
4
www.mordorlife.tripod.com accessed 4/2012
Max Jackson
Page 129
an exciting ride. In the first design, the building will be designed to resemble one of the castles
present in the film, namely the ‘Ruins of Osgiliath 5’. There will be large stone archways for the cars
to enter and to leave the indoor section, with the possibility of having large, automated wooden
doors. There will be pillars either side of the arches, and recesses all along the outside of the
building to resemble windows from that time. The building itself will be built out of old grey stone to
resemble the ruins and will be made to look aged and cracked with statues all around. This design
would fit well with the feel of Oxford, complimenting
the skyline, without drawing too much attention
from it.
The second design is simpler; here the
building is proposed to resemble one of the caves
or tunnels that feature heavily in the film . The
whole building will be made to appear like rock,
with the entrance and exit in the form of old
crumbling caves. The natural look of this design
Figure 8.4.2: Cave Building Design
means that it will fit in well with the park within which it is situated, whilst giving passengers a view
of what the protagonist in the book was seeing himself. However the large amorphous shape is not
particularly aesthetically pleasing and may not be to
everybody’s taste.
For the final design, the building will have the text
from
the outside of the ‘One
Ring’ along
it’s
circumference, completely encircling the building. It also
features a billboard on the Osney Road side, with the
aim of attracting even more passing customers. This is
the simplest and cheapest way of enclosing the indoor
section, as the regular, square sections used to make it
Figure 8.4.3: ‘Black Speech’ Text Building Design
5
www.tolkeingateway.net accessed 4/2012
Max Jackson
Page 130
can be manufactured and assembled with ease. However this design does not add a great deal to
the ride, and in fact the boxy nature and garish advertising present in this design could be enough
to cheapen and turn people away from the ride.
Overall it has been decided that the ‘Ruins of Osgiliath’ design will be used, as this not only fits in
well with both the theme and Oxford itself, but also looks impressive and adds a sense of class to
the ride. Using effective props, along with this elegant design, a story can be told to riders as they
are queuing, allowing them to be transported to this parallel word to experience first-hand what it
would be like to be in the Lord of the Rings book. Below is a more detailed design of what the
southern face of the building would look like6.
Figure 8.4.4 More Detailed Image of ‘Ruins of Osgiliath’ building design
SECTION CONCLUSION
A Lord of the Rings theme will be used for the roller coaster, which plays on the ties
between Tolkein and Oxford itself, as well as utilising the upcoming release of two Hobbit films.
The theme will be implemented in several ways to ensure it is not lost on the passengers.
6
Image designed using parts from http://forge-quest.blogspot.co.uk accessed 4/2012
Charlie Hill
Page 131
9: COMMERCIAL
Having designed and developed a sustainable, low environmental impact roller coaster, this
section considers the commercial feasibility of our solution.
9.1: View Analysis
Judging by the large amount of tourists walking around Oxford in summer, with cameras, and
touring colleges, one of Oxford’s appeals is the visual appeal of the old buildings. Launch of the
Rings will capitalise on this, by offering customers an all new view over the city; where one can see
many of the picturesque landmarks from above.
Our site, being located just to the South West of the city centre provides potential for good
views. To analyse these views, it was assumed that Oxford city centre is largely flat. Cross
sections towards the
city
centre
where
then considered at
intervals of every 15 .
A representation of
the lines along which
the
cross
sections
were taken is given
Figure 9.1.1: Cross sections of city for view analysis
in figure 9.1.1. The
diagram also shows a personal classification of the ugly (red), and attractive (green) parts of the
city, based on the author’s opinion. The diagram shows how the roller coaster is surrounded by
quite an ugly part of the city. Thus, a view worth seeing would require the roller coaster to overlook
all of its immediate surroundings, and be tall enough to see into the centre of the city.
Due to the 18m height restriction on the roller coaster, and the distance to the buildings shown,
a roller coaster offering views of the city became unfeasible, and it was realised that such a roller
coaster could not be built.
Figure 9.1.2: An example height profile along a cross section line shown above
Charlie Hill
Page 132
9.2: USPs
Launch of the Rings offers customers a thrilling roller coaster experience, in the middle of a
historic city. Our marketing campaigns will be driven according to our unique selling points (USPs).
Competitive analysis has proven that the USPs of a roller coaster typically fall into four
categories. Due to the engineering experience of the design team, Launch of the Rings should
present an engineering triumph by being something new, exciting and different. The engineering
triumphs of Launch of the Rings have been discussed at length throughout this project. Height and
size constraints limited the scope of our ambitions, although, through use of a launched ride, and a
fast, twisty outdoor section, an exciting experience has been created. With the maximum height of
the roller coaster at 18m, and maximum speed of 45mph, the roller coaster is capable of keeping
up with, and providing as thrilling an experience as other rides out there.
The second USP considered was the view. However, as discussed in section 9.1 above, views
of picturesque Oxford were not attainable from our roller coaster.
The Lord of the Rings theme we have opted for presents a third USP. As discussed in section
8, the link between Oxford and Tolkien, Lord of the Rings creator, is exploited, in creating a thrilling
themed ride. By use of a slow, themed indoor section of the track, we hope to bring Lord of the
Rings to life. Pressure from other theme parks, however, may lead to this selling point not being
unique for long.
The final USP is location. Rather than having to search for customers, we hope to deliver an
additional service to a location where potential customers are plentiful. The city centre location of a
roller coaster is, in itself, pretty unique, however, building a roller coaster in the centre of a city with
such architecture and planning protection should ensure that our roller coaster would be the only
roller coaster built in Oxford, giving us a monopoly over the market, and ensuring unique status.
Launch of the Rings has opted to combine our world class location, a relevant theme, and
engineering triumph to create a thrilling and exciting experience that presents value for money for
customers. The USPs of Launch of the Rings need to be particularly strong, as, unlike most theme
parks, Launch of the Rings does not have the draw of multiple rides in one location.
Charlie Hill
Page 133
9.3: Economics Model
The feasibility of Launch of the Rings depends on the return to investment it creates. An
economic model has been created to balance flows of money and to prove the profitability of the
roller coaster.
The model runs through a balance sheet for every year of the roller coaster’s predicted
lifespan, allowing for inflation, capital interest, changing energy efficiencies and rates, and can
produce an estimated balance sheet for every year of the roller coaster. Modelled into the
equation, include average annual income (section 9.4-5) from the ride, and estimated costs, both
continuous and single payment (section 9.6). The model is then drawn together in section 9.7,
proving the profitability of the roller coaster. The model draws together ideas discussed in Varian,
20101, and Mankiw and Taylor, 20072.
9.4: Ticket Prices
Oxford, known internationally for being a university city, has a permanent population of 150,000
people, including 40,000 students in the two universities. Due to the high number of students, the
population turnover is the highest of any city or town in England3. Coupled with Oxford’s 9 million15
tourists per year, the 7th most popularly visited city in the UK4, Oxford gives a large, constantly
changing audience at which to market a roller coaster.
In line with most other theme parks, Launch of the Rings will offer tickets in four different
categories. Adult tickets as standard, that cover any category of person not given below. Student
tickets will cover all riders up to the age of 16, and those over the age of 16, who are able to show
a valid student ID. Concessionary tickets will be available for all over the age of 65. Family tickets
will provide discounted entry for families, where a family qualifies as 2 adults, and 2 children. There
will also be a discount for buying tickets in advance, whether online, or through any associated
sales point in Oxford.
1
th
Introductory Microeconomics: Hal Varian 2010. 8 edition
th
Macroeconomics: Taylor and Mankiw 2007. 7 edition.
3
Figures courtesy of http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decC/Population_statistics_occw.htm - accessed
February 2012
4
http://www.mediafiles.thedms.co.uk/Publication/OSOX/cms/pdf/Oxford_Tourism_Study_FINAL_REPORT_V2_201008.PDF - accessed February 2012
2
Charlie Hill
Page 134
According to the Oxford Tourism study , 10% of visitors to the city stay overnight, with 50% of
16
these visitors being overseas tourists. With tourism volumes having grown 5 - 10% over the past
decade, the tourism market in Oxford shows no sign of slowing down. The typical demographic for
a roller coaster ranges between 14 and early 40s. The 2007 Oxford visitor survey5 shows that the
majority of the visitors to the town are aged between 55 - 64, this band making up 21% of the
entire visiting population. The report also shows that 37% of visitors fall into the key 16 - 44 age
bracket we wish to target. With 64% of these visitors visiting for a holiday, and an average daily
expenditure per visitor of about £40.00, the market place for new tourism activities seems
prosperous.
Knowing that leisure is a normal
good6,
meaning
that
as
price
decreases a population will demand
more of it, we might assume a typical
Cobbs-Douglas type demand curve
(figure 9.4.1) between ticket price, and
the uptake of tickets. This suggests
that most people’s willingness to pay
Figure 9.4.1: Relationship between ticket price, and quantity of tickets sold
is lumped around one point, which
seems in line with common observation. The Cobbs-Douglas demand curve represents:
( )
Where
are constants that can be changed to manipulate the demand function to the
required position. The demand curve fails in the extremes as
and
. As such the
demand curves will be fitted to known data points, and the curves should then not be used for
extrapolation outside of these data points. This demand curve will need to be calculated and
parameterised individually for each of the customer groups. It is assumed that customer groups
have a different distribution of willingness to pay, thus resulting in discounts. By charging individual
5
http://www.mediafiles.thedms.co.uk/Publication/OS-OX/cms/pdf/Oxfordshire%20Visitor%20Survey%202007.pdf accessed February 2012
6
Geographical abstracts: Human geography, volume 15, issues 1 - 4
Charlie Hill
Page 135
groups closer to their willingness to pay, one is acting as a discriminating monopolist, and better
maximising one’s profit13.
The other half of the problem is supply. For a roller coaster, the additional outlay in running the
ride, as opposed to not running the ride, is small. The only real costs to be considered are the
power used in the launching mechanism. All other costs, ride, staff, even largely maintenance are
fixed. As such, we can provide any quantity of
rides (within reason) at a fixed price. The model
starts to fall apart when changes to the track, i.e.
extra loading space, need to be incorporated
due to overloading, but in a region near to the
design capacity, the supply model is largely
linear, and is shown here against the demand
Figure 9.4.2: Supply and Demand curve for the roller coaster
curve, as a horizontal line (figure 9.4.2).
For the roller coaster operator, there is one variable: the price. This can be shifted vertically to
maximise profit. The profit function is given as:
( )
We can substitute in the Cobbs-Douglas formula for p, and argue that here ( )
, where k is
a constant, leaving our maximisation problem as:
Solving by taking the first derivative and equating to zero, we find:
(
)
For general n, the solution to this is to make the price infinitely high. This comes as a result
of limitations of the Cobbs-Douglas model. However, the message from this analysis is that greater
prices will lead to greater profit, therefore, prices should be sufficiently low as to cause a constant
throughput, but as high as possible within that bracket.
We should also consider that by setting the price, the ride operator indirectly sets the
quantity of tickets sold. This quantity can be calculated from the equilibrium point where the supply
Charlie Hill
Page 136
and demand curves cross. A price level should be chosen that equilibrates a quantity of
passengers that is possible on our ride.
The price levels are to be chosen by fitting sample data to our curves. From this we can
calculate the required values of the constants:
. Sample data from each group should be used
to establish a suitable range of prices compared to tickets sold. From this, the quantity of visitors,
and subsequent throughput can be calculated.
It has been determined that a thrilling, high speed roller coaster does not have a large
attraction for the concession price group. As such, the uptake of concession tickets will be
negligibly small, that is 0% of the riders on the roller coaster. To allow for any elderly individual who
does want to ride the roller coaster, and is in a suitable state of health to do so, a discount rate
equal to that for students will be implemented.
The student population of Oxford is
40,000, which, assuming an average degree
length of 3.5 years, equates to a student turnover
of about 11,500 per year. That is, 11,500 new
customers moving into the area of the roller
coaster. Those students can be classified into
three groups: those that will never go on the roller
Figure 9.4.3: Quantity of student tickets sold by price
coaster; those that will go once; and those that
will go multiple times. Observation and extrapolation show us that 40% will fall into the first
category. They will have no demand for our service, regardless of the price. Splitting the remaining
60% of the population between the other groups, some plausible data points can be considered.
Taking the students who will want to ride once (20% of turnover = 2300 students per year), uptake
is likely to be:
Price
£3.00
£6.00
Uptake
95%
40%
Number
2185
920
Charlie Hill
Page 137
Substituting these points into the Cobb-Douglas expression above, calculated values of
are
. This particular function is shown in figure 9.4.3. Also shown in figure
9.4.3, is the revenue created from ticket sales. This revenue is the ticket price multiplied by the
quantity of tickets, as expected, but here it is easy to see how the area of the rectangle,
representing the profit made, changes with price. As the roller coaster has zero variable cost, this
rectangle also represents the marginal profits for each extra seat sold, that is to say, that above the
breakeven line, 100% of revenue becomes profit. Also of note is the length of the demand curve.
As stated above, the model does not work outside of the data points from which it was
parameterised. These data points were at £3.00 and £6.00, and thus the curve has only been
drawn for this range of values.
Similar analysis for multiple riders, however using the number of rides each rider would
take at each price level, per year, provides figures for the multiple student rider group described
above. The remaining 40% of the student population must fall into this group; that is 16,000
students. If a £3.00 ticket would lead to 5 rides per year, per student, and a £6.00 ticket would lead
to 2 rides per year, per student, we can again characterise the demand with
.
Total student demand will be the superposition of the above groups, that is:
( )
In practise, this number is likely to be substantially more than that calculated here, due to
visiting friends and tourists. As discussed above, maximisation of profits is not realistic, thus by
comparing to other similar attractions, and considering prices to give us a good throughput, we can
use this model to calculate that at £4.00 a ticket, we should sell 11,500 student tickets per year.
For the adult group 31.5% of tourists lie in the interest range of 20 - 45, that is 2.9 million
people. Due to the magnitude difference between tourism and residents, we will chose to
incorporate residents in this figure of 2.9 million. The same analysis as above leads us to conclude
that at £4.75 per ticket, the roller coaster would see annual adult throughput of 1 million people per
year.
The Oxford visitor survey16 states that 5% of visitors visited in a group of at least 2 adults
and 2 children - a family group for Launch of the Rings. That is 500,000 people. By the above
Charlie Hill
Page 138
technique of parameterising functions, and also by considering discount rates at competitive theme
parks, a conclusion was drawn to charge family tickets at £3.75 per person, with an uptake of
375,000 people.
Finally, we will assume a realism factor of about 50%. The above figures assume that large
amounts of people want to visit the roller coaster, and this assumption seems a little ambitious. By
halving the expected visitor numbers, the figures should be nearer to those that we could
reasonably expect.
After analysing the competition, Launch of the Rings will also offer a pre-purchase discount,
across all tickets of 12%. Expected uptake of pre-purchase tickets is about 60% of the total
population, and these tickets would be available to buy at many of the tourism centres of Oxford,
including tours, and tickets available for purchase online
Figure 9.4.4 summarises the key points. The total annual throughput of the roller coaster is
693,500, with total annual turnover of
£2.3 million. Our main target will be
adults, and the majority of these will
Table 9.4.4: Groups, ticket prices and quantities of tickets sold
come from tourism. This suggests that
we should work with Oxford tourism and tourist companies in the town to market our attraction.
Prices will also rise annually, in line with inflation, thus the present day value of the turnover
should remain constant over time. As Launch of the Rings is an additional attraction to those
already in the area, the throughput should not decrease with time, as it might if the roller coaster
were used as an attraction on its own.
This leads to the conclusion that Oxford has a sufficient population to support our roller
coaster, without having to market for individuals to travel to Oxford just for the roller coaster. This
proves the feasibility of our proposal, but is also in keeping with our aim of utilising the existing
customer base in the area, as opposed to bringing in a completely new set of customers.
Charlie Hill
Page 139
9.5: Commercial Throughput
The visitor numbers calculated for Launch of the Rings need to be subjected to other
considerations. To pass this number of visitors through, the roller coaster will operate for 10 hours
a day, 7 days a week. In line with many other theme parks, and what we perceive to be the peak
tourism times for Oxford, the ride will operate from the beginning of February, to the end of
November, with a two month down period over winter. This means average throughput will be 250
people per hour, or, with carts of four people, about 1 ride every minute.
In line with general tourism trends, and observations
at other theme parks, throughput is not expected to be
uniform throughout the year. Instead, we might expect a
quadratic variation as the year passes. Figure 9.5.1
shows our maximum throughput, indicating when the ride
is closed, in green, alongside the seasonal demand, in
blue. The shaded area shows the number of customers
Figure 9.5.1: Seasonal Variation in throughput,
we can serve, and this number has been calculated at theoretical and actual
620,000. We aim to be able to accommodate peak summer demand and, as shown here, actual
throughput is contained within the ride maximum. Here, demand has been modelled quadratically,
with winter demand being 40% of maximum demand.
To maintain this level of throughput, the ride will also need to be appropriately scary. If the ride
is not sufficiently scary, then it will not be exciting enough to draw in customers. If the ride is too
scary, then it will scare potential customers off. This has been taken into consideration when
developing our ride.
Another concern is that visitors will not arrive uniformly throughout the day. During peak
periods visitors will have to queue for the ride. Tickets will be sold with a time slot at which visitors
can start queuing. This means that visitors will be enjoying the park instead of standing in a queue
waiting. However, allowing 0.5m of space for every person to queue, if people start queuing 10
minutes before their allocated time, i.e. 40 people, room for queuing of length 20m needs to be
made available leading into the station for the roller coaster.
Charlie Hill
Page 140
9.6: Costs
The other side of the balance sheet for the roller coaster is made up of outgoings. These fall
into two categories. Initial start-up costs, such as the construction of the roller coaster, and getting
underway, and continuous running costs. By definition, initial costs are only paid once, continuous
costs have to be accounted for on an annual basis.
Annual costs run to a present day value of
about £1 million, as summarised in table 9.6.1. A
large part of the budget will be spent on
advertising. This would include local television
advertising during the prime season at £225,000,
alongside Oxford tourism advertising, and internet
Table 9.6.1: Continuous costs
advertising, costing about another £250,000. Ride
staff will be paid hourly, and this includes an on duty ride manager, and maintenance officer being
paid £15 per hour, alongside 3 ticket sellers, a shop assistant and 2 ride operators, each on £7 per
hour. More than this number of employees will be on the books, however, this quantity of staff will
have to be on duty at any given time. The ride manager and maintenance manager will not always
be on site, and will be paid a full time salary, equivalent to 37.5 hours per week, at the rate
mentioned above. Multiplying part-time workers by the 3000 hours per year worked, and summing
over all employees gives a wage budget of £154,000 per year. To allow for taxes, provision of
cover etc., another £100,000 has been added onto the budget.
Business rates have been calculated from government websites, and have been shown here7.
Maintenance includes an annual maintenance budget for the maintenance staff of £50,000 per
year to cover the ride and buildings. General site and grounds maintenance, e.g. keeping the site
clean, is then incorporated at £5,000 a year, and the responsibility will be leased to an external
contractor. Insurances, covering public liability8, employers liability, and general site cover have
also been incorporated. Energy costs will vary over time, due to a combination in predicted energy
7
8
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk - Accessed March 2012. http://www.voa.gov.uk - Accessed March 2012.
http://www.martininsurancebrokers.com - Accessed March 2012
Charlie Hill
Page 141
price increases above inflation, and also decreasing renewable energy returns from the
photovoltaic cells installed at the site. Due to this, energy bills in year 1 are expected to be in the
region of £5,000, whereas in year 40 they are expected to be at a present value of £50,000. To
reflect this, an average present value
figure has been used of £26,000. This
results in ride running costs of just
under a million pounds per year.
Initial costs have been much
harder to allow for. A table breaking
down the costs of the construction
work is given here, see figure 9.6.2,
and the total cost of the roller coaster
is about seven million pounds.
Finance
for
the
project
will
probably come from a variety of
places. The investor who initiates the
project will probably provide funding,
alongside bank loans, and loans from
tourism companies.
As such, the cost of the roller
coaster will be written in the balance
Table 9.6.2: Construction costs of the roller coaster
sheets, as it would be for tax purposes. That is to say, in the first year of running, 40% of the cost
of the roller coaster will be written off. For the next 20 years between 25 and 50% of the ride will be
written off each year, before the whole cost of the ride is
Price
written off in year 20. The aim is to reflect the differing
finance sources, and thus interest rates payable. Figure
9.6.3 shows the breakdown of these costs with time.
Time
Figure 9.6.3: Depreciation of construction costs of the roller coaster
Charlie Hill
Page 142
9.7: Spreadsheet
Having considered both sides of the balance sheet, let us now tie together the financial
situation. The spread sheet9 developed for Launch of the Rings creates a forecasted balance sheet
for every year of operation. This balance sheet then calculates annual, and cumulative, profit. The
inputs
to
the
model
are
highlighted in green in figure
9.7.1,
and
provide
complete
control over all of the factors of
the model.
Net
annual
profit,
is
calculated from:
Profit dependant sums
can then be calculated. First, as
noted
in
section
8.1,
the Table 9.7.1: Inputs and Outputs of spreadsheet
franchising of the theme is deducted at 2% of profits. If no profit is made, then no franchising
charge ensues. VAT is then calculated and removed from earnings in all years when profit is
positive. When profit is negative, VAT can be offset against purchases, and no VAT is payable to
the government. Here, VAT has been charged at the current rate of 20%.
Interest is then calculated on the accounts of the roller coaster. This model allows a
separate interest rate to be specified for loans, to that of savings. Figures of 1% interest on savings
and 6% interest on loans reflect the current conditions, and are necessarily cautious, and as such
have been used in the model. Interest is added to the model for the account balance of the
previous year.
The model also reflects inflation. It has been taken here at a typical 3% per annum rate.
Inflation has been applied uniformly across all factors, apart from energy, where a higher inflation
9
Spreadsheet available at http://www.adhill.info/CharlieHill/Oxford/ORC.xlsx
Charlie Hill
Page 143
rate of about 6% has been applied, in accordance with section 9.6. To see the effects of these
variables, the model also provides the option not to run the interest and inflation models.
From the above, the gross profit is then calculated for every year of the 40 year lifecycle.
The profit is calculated as the future value of the profit, and the present day value of the profit can
be calculated simply from:
(
Where
)
is the present value of the money,
the future value of the money,
the
inflation rate, and , the number of years in the future being calculated. The model then validates
form the input ride figures the throughput of the ride each year, which is given as 622,000. This is
in line with our expectations calculated in section 8.8, allowing for the two month winter period
during which the ride would shut.
Figure 9.7.1 also shows the key outputs from the model, shown here in yellow. The first is
the number of years until the ride breaks even. The cumulative profit chart in figure 9.7.2 shows the
amount of money Launch of the Rings would bank given the above assumptions, writing off the
construction debt over a 20 year period, and also given that all profits stayed in the account until
the end. This chart shows the breakeven point as being in the 5th year of the roller coaster. This
chart has been calculated in future value of money, hence the quadratic nature, particularly over
the latter half of the roller coaster’s life span. The reason for the initial negative slope is the high
Price
Years
Figure 9.7.2: Cumulative Profit
Charlie Hill
Page 144
value of repayments made against the construction costs of the roller coaster. Given, as is the
case here, that income is constant year on year, then we can see that the minimum in the graph
must correspond to the point where expenditure is equal to income, that is to say the repayment
value is lower than income less continuous expenditure.
Figure 9.7.2 also explains a number of the other findings from figure 9.7.1. The largest
deficit for Launch of the Rings has been calculated at -£1.4 million. This corresponds to the
minimum mentioned above, and represents the largest loan we would require access to, to keep
the roller coaster running. However, if all of the roller coaster had to be written off against a loan in
year 0, the largest deficit would be much greater, at -£5.5 million at the end of the first year. In this
case the roller coaster would make a year on year profit in every year of running.
We can also read from this graph the life time profit. For Launch of the Rings, this has a
future value of £79.0 million, which equates to a present value of £24.2 million. This represents a
220% return on investment over the life time of the roller coaster. Compared to alternative
investments, this makes Launch of the Rings risky, with relatively low returns, yet the project is
definitely feasible. The project is also set to increase tourism in Oxford, and provide a further
attraction for visitors, increasing the feasibility of the roller coaster from a wider point of view. This
analysis does not include the future value of the land, the buildings or any part of the roller coaster
that may be sold on.
Figure 9.7.3: Year on year roller coaster profit
Charlie Hill
Page 145
The final output of the model is the first year in which the roller coaster makes year on year
profit. This occurs in year 2, as shown by the x-axis crossing in figure 9.7.3. This also corresponds
to the minimum in figure 9.7.2, which, as we would expect, represents the point at which debits
become greater than credits. Profitability in the 2nd year of operation is promising considering how
the roller coaster initial costs are repaid.
Figure 9.7.3 shows the profit made on the roller coaster in any given year. A loss is made in
year 1, due to the high repayments made on the roller coaster. However, as the repayments
decrease each year, 25% of remaining value is repaid, the roller coaster makes a profit. This gives
rise to the curve between years 2 and 9. Profits decrease in year 10, as the roller coaster changes
from a 25% payback rate to a 50% payback rate. When the entire roller coaster is repaid in year
20, the repayments are sufficiently small (< £600 per annum) that the doubling of payback rate
does not affect the profit margin.
Launch of the Rings thus provides a £2.5 million per year turnover investment, with average
profits of just under £0.5m per year; a roller coaster that should break even within the first 5 years,
and then profit in every subsequent year. From a commercial point of view, the roller coaster is
financially sound, and a viable investment. As the population turnover figures used have been
conservative, it is likely that the profit made from the ride will be greater than that calculated here,
and due to the throughput setup mentioned in section 9.5, the ride is capable of handling greater
numbers of people if needed.
The main commercial hurdle is keeping people interested in the ride, and keep people
coming back. A short mention of this has already been given, but we shall now develop this further.
9.8: Long Term Business Plan
The commercial feasibility of Launch of the Rings has been based around a 40 year lifecycle.
Although there is limited precedent for this, as roller coasters weren’t around in great numbers 40
years ago10, and manufacturing techniques have altered greatly over time, this should not be a
problem. To allow for the 40 year lifecycle, the roller coaster has been designed to be durable, and
10
http://www.rcdb.com/ - accessed March 2012
Charlie Hill
Page 146
with suitable maintenance as outlined in section 7.2, the ride should be more than capable of
lasting this amount of time.
However, we cannot guarantee customer interest in our roller coaster for this period, so a
number of considerations have had to be made. Primarily, the majority of visitors to Launch of the
Rings are in the city as tourists. Current visitor numbers have grown 5 - 10% over the past
decade11. As Oxford’s main attraction is its old picturesque colleges, these are unlikely to be lost in
the life time of the roller coaster, and with current fascination in history and architecture, it seems
unlikely that the interest in the buildings will be lost. As such, it seems likely that the client base for
the roller coaster is safe.
Another concern may be “the passing of the roller coaster fashion.” However, people have
searched for thrills throughout the entire history of mankind, so a roller coaster than can offer an
exciting thrill is pretty safe. Of course, as our roller coaster becomes older, and newer, more
daring, and technologically challenging roller coasters are built, we will expect to see a decline in
visitor numbers. Because Launch of the Rings is not at the forefront of today’s technological
marvel, and appeals to visitors more because of its location, Launch of the Rings should be
relatively immune to technical surpassing.
As our roller coaster uses renewable energy, it is also less at risk of any future energy crisis.
This security would enable the roller coaster to keep operating, should the grid ever run short on
power.
To keep interest in the roller coaster, it is proposed that the theme is changed after 20 years,
half the life time of the roller coaster. Although the initial Lord of the Rings theme is currently
popular, and should be able to stand time, a revamp of the roller coaster that freshens up the
whole experience will be necessary to keep customer interest. The theme will be decided in the
future, and the theme should appeal as much to tomorrow’s customers, as today’s theme does
today.
Launch of the Rings is thus able to stand the test of time. With its unique tourist customer
base, the attractions of Oxford are sufficiently great to keep customers at our doorstep, and with
11
http://www.mediafiles.thedms.co.uk/Publication/OSOX/cms/pdf/Oxford_Tourism_Study_FINAL_REPORT_V2_201008.PDF - accessed March 2012
Charlie Hill
Page 147
green energy sources we are able to provide a permanent experience for any thrill-seeking
adventurers.
With a payback time of 4 years, and lifetime profits in the region of £24m, Launch of the
Rings represents a unique experience, that co-ordinates the new into a city of culture and
architecture. It is predicted that 25 million people will visit Launch of the Rings over its 40 year
lifetime, and Launch of the Rings is able to provide every single passenger a safe, exciting and
enjoyable experience.
9.9: Conclusions
This project set out to build a world class attraction, on a relatively small site in the middle of one of
the world’s most renowned cities. Against limitations of height, crowd control, flooding, and noise
restrictions, Launch of the Rings has shone through, and promises riders a themed, exciting
experience. Whilst not in a traditional theme park, Launch of the Rings looks to use a different kind
of great tourist attraction to help provide visitors.
When considering the risk of flooding, the team decided to allow the site to continue to
flood. Any flood prevention would only make flooding worse somewhere else. To allow for this, all
buildings have been designed at the higher points on the site, and the track foundations have been
designed to withstand water flooding for small periods of time. The track also remains at a height
well above the known flood levels.
To reduce noise pollution for local residents, a large building stands along the part of the
field nearest the houses. The roller coaster track was also designed such that the exciting twists
and turns are as far away from the houses as possible. These features, that may induce
screaming, thus have the maximum distance for the noise to be dissipated. The tracks will also be
filled with pea gravel such as to minimise the track noise.
By utilising the customer base already in town, the roller coaster does not add excessively
to the congestion and traffic in town, so minimal transport changes are required. However, a new
pedestrian crossing is to be installed, and the site will be signposted, ensuring customers can
easily find the site.
Charlie Hill
Page 148
Site safety has been checked through a bomb risk check, and continued site safety will be
ensured through requirements that have been laid out for contractors, and ultimately the risk
assessment and safety aspects considered in section 7.
Launch of the Rings has also proven its commercial feasibility, with prospective returns of
£24m over a 40 year life cycle, alongside an annual turnover of £2.5 million. The roller coaster also
helps tourism in Oxford by offering an additional attraction for those in the city.
The roller coaster itself has been designed with a slow, themed indoor section, to build
excitement, before being launched as a flying roller coaster, one of only a few in the country. The
launch will see the carts accelerated to their maximum speed of 45 mph, before the carts
undertake a series of rolls and turns.
Launch of the Rings is a viable proposition that will bring new life to the city of Oxford, and
will provide an exciting new attraction for coming generations of tourists.
William Hancock
Page 149
10.1: Appendix to 6.8: Noise Pollution
Ride A - Rectangular Section support
Ride E – Circular support section
Ride B, C, and D – Different types of
roller coasters
The variation seen from the different
lines for each roller coaster is due to
slight differences in speed and
acceleration forces and to different
levels of screaming during tests
Figure 6.11.1: Roller coaster sound pressure at 15m
Figure 6.11.2: Spectra at different car positions
Figure 6.11.3: Coaster spectra by scream level
Figure 6.11.4: Noise reduction of support beam and rails
All graphs shown and conclusions are from a study by inter-noise 2002:
The International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, Dearborn MI 2002.
‘Residential impact criteria and abatement strategies for roller coaster noise’
C. W Menge, H Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.

Launch of the Rings

Transcription

Similar documents

10 Historic Facts About Great America

Coaster History

the roller coaster was born more than 125 years ago

English version: “Inside and insight into Efteling”

SMART FUN in MIRABILANDIA ( )

Untitled - MaxFlight

Newsletter March 2015

Roller Coasters

PTC15 True Training Ride 6-13-15

Reference project - ASSA ABLOY Sicherheitstechnik GmbH