Xcelerator @ KBF got stuck on the top hat

I'm surprised no one here is talking about how Xcelerator at KBF literally got stuck at the top of it's top hat on the 31st. I'd thought that people here would be as amazed about that as I was.

But yeah it happened, I have no way to prove it, because the only video I took of it was on snapchat and I forgot to save it. I had always that it was impossible for Intamin Accelerator coasters to get stuck on the top hat, but it happened (for the first time I believe), on Xcelerator.

EDIT: Also sorry if what I typed doesn't make sense, it's almost 1am and I'm tired

EDIT #2: Also it happened during a test run, so there was no need for a press article, so before you ask for one, don't.

[Dirk_Ermen]

Not really surprised. Just cool to hear it has happened. Since the possibility is there if all the conditions are right. Launch speed/wind/temperature/etc.

[mkingy]

Zeptis wrote:

I'm surprised no one here is talking about how Xcelerator at KBF literally got stuck at the top of it's top hat on the 31st. I'd thought that people here would be as amazed about that as I was.

But yeah it happened, I have no way to prove it, because the only video I took of it was on snapchat and I forgot to save it. I had always that it was impossible for Intamin Accelerator coasters to get stuck on the top hat, but it happened (for the first time I believe), on Xcelerator.

EDIT: Also sorry if what I typed doesn't make sense, it's almost 1am and I'm tired

EDIT #2: Also it happened during a test run, so there was no need for a press article, so before you ask for one, don't.

It's happened to TTD at least 3 times with passengers aboard which is why it's probably it's not been big news

As for Kingda Ka, I'm not sure if it has gotten stuck there. Have heard of its rollbacks, though.

lol240 wrote:

As for Kingda Ka, I'm not sure if it has gotten stuck there. Have heard of its rollbacks, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure KK has trims and perhaps a booster wheel at the top.

[TTD03]

^ Has trims, no booster wheels. Has not gotten stuck at the top.

TTD03 wrote:

^ Has trims, no booster wheels. Has not gotten stuck at the top.

what about Stealth at Thorpe Park?

[Dirk_Ermen]

skyscraper wrote:

TTD03 wrote:

^ Has trims, no booster wheels. Has not gotten stuck at the top.

what about Stealth at Thorpe Park?

No trims and no booster wheels. I think it got stuck on the top once. Not sure though. *looks at other UK geeks*

I'm just glad no one thought I was crazy, all I know is, it's the first time it happened on xcelerator, and I was amazed. I'm just glad I got to see it in person

I guess getting stuck at the top, is way better than getting slapped in the face by launch cables. Oh Xcelerator you silly goose.

[Oscar]

Why wasn't I on it D: Thanks for posting, I had not heard of this

[Metazoanhaddock]

Oscar wrote:

Why wasn't I on it D: Thanks for posting, I had not heard of this

Because then it would have rolled back silly

[Coasterkidmwm]

Metazoanhaddock wrote:

Oscar wrote:

Why wasn't I on it D: Thanks for posting, I had not heard of this

Because then it would have rolled back silly

[Mr. Freeze]

Nice call

Yes, Xcelerator did get stuck on the top hat during morning testing on Sunday, January 31st, and this is the first time it has happened on this particular coaster (though other accelerator coasters have gotten stuck). It was a fairly wet and windy day (at least by So Cal standards), so I'm assuming those were the main factors in the incident. The park was able to get the train down by putting the coaster into manual mode and launching the catch car to shake the top hat, eventually causing the train to roll over and complete the circuit. I do not know if the ride opened on Sunday, but I was at the park the following day (Monday, February 1st), and while the ride was closed in the morning due to wind it opened in the early afternoon and was running normally until I left around 5 P.M.

Metazoanhaddock wrote:

Oscar wrote:

Why wasn't I on it D: Thanks for posting, I had not heard of this

Because then it would have rolled back silly

[herman116]

rcdude wrote:

The park was able to get the train down by putting the coaster into manual mode and launching the catch car to shake the top hat, eventually causing the train to roll over and complete the circuit.

Isn't it extremely risky to put the coaster in manual mode while the train is still full of people? That was what went wrong with the Smiler wasn't it?

[Paradox]

herman116 wrote:

rcdude wrote:

The park was able to get the train down by putting the coaster into manual mode and launching the catch car to shake the top hat, eventually causing the train to roll over and complete the circuit.

Isn't it extremely risky to put the coaster in manual mode while the train is still full of people? That was what went wrong with the Smiler wasn't it?

It happened during a test run so no people could have been injured.

If there were people on this then they could have just done this lol

And no, it's not risky; unless you're an idiot. For example:
Sometimes coaster have overspeeds. It happens. When it happens, the train that had the overspeed, will be too far forward (aka it parked incorrectly). If this is the case, most manufactures do not allow trains to open restraints (unless done manually). Probably because the connectors are not aligned. In order for the train to open restraints the ride must me put in manual in order to 'home' the ride. In my 6 years as a ride operator and location supervisor at Cedar Point, maintenance and ride managers are the only ones allowed to move the train in manual loaded or unloaded.

To reiterate on the events that happened; it's not risky. Unless you're an idiot.

herman116 wrote:

rcdude wrote:

The park was able to get the train down by putting the coaster into manual mode and launching the catch car to shake the top hat, eventually causing the train to roll over and complete the circuit.

Isn't it extremely risky to put the coaster in manual mode while the train is still full of people? That was what went wrong with the Smiler wasn't it?

There is a risk to putting a coaster in manual mode, but the risk is the increased possibility of operator error. In manual mode, the operator is essentially enabling the ability to override the safety protocols of the operating system and is given the ability to control each individual component independently. If the person at the controls knows what they're doing, there won't be a problem. For example, I've been on several roller coasters (usually older and often of the traveling variety) that were 100% manually operated and ran 2-3 vehicles with no problems. This is done by visually monitoring exactly where each train is at any given time and only allowing a train to advance if the track is clear (essentially a human powered block system). What happened on Smiler is that the operator assumed the track was clear without visually verifying that it was indeed clear, so they overrode a warning and advanced a train into an occupied block.

In any case, the risk in the Xcelerator incident was negligible for the following reasons:

1. As stated previously, the incident occurred during morning testing before the park opened for the day. At that time, the train was unloaded. Had the train been loaded, the extra momentum would have likely prevented it from getting stuck.

2. Even if the stuck train was loaded, Xcelerator only operates with one train. While the ride does have two trains and the capacity increase is about 70% with both trains in operation, the downtime increases by about 150% so the capacity increase is mostly cancelled. The park is currently looking into reprogramming the ride in order to minimize additional downtime with two train operation, but until that happens they have decided to only use one train.

3. Even if two trains were on the track, the blocking setup would ensure that they are isolated from each other. Due to the ride launching directly out of the station, the second train is unable to advance into it until the first train reaches the bottom of the drop. There is also a block section before the waiting block, so a train cannot be launched until the other train has entered this block. Therefore, regardless of which side the train came down it would be stopped in a block section before reaching the other train (unless the operator disabled the brakes, but that would require extreme incompetence and/or malicious intent).

Because of the nature of manual mode, there is certainly a greater risk potential, and this is the reason parks have very strict regulations regarding it. However, if proper procedures are followed and the operator doesn't do something stupid there won't be any problems.

Paradox wrote:

Those riders should have put their hands up at the drop after pushing that train forward!

[mkingy]

lol240 wrote:

Paradox wrote:

Those riders should have put their hands up at the drop after pushing that train forward!

Probably tired after spending 20 minutes rocking backwards and forwards hah

[Coasterkidmwm]

coasterdave wrote:

And no, it's not risky; unless you're an idiot. For example:
Sometimes coaster have overspeeds. It happens. When it happens, the train that had the overspeed, will be too far forward (aka it parked incorrectly). If this is the case, most manufactures do not allow trains to open restraints (unless done manually). Probably because the connectors are not aligned. In order for the train to open restraints the ride must me put in manual in order to 'home' the ride. In my 6 years as a ride operator and location supervisor at Cedar Point, maintenance and ride managers are the only ones allowed to move the train in manual loaded or unloaded.

To reiterate on the events that happened; it's not risky. Unless you're an idiot.

Your ride was twice as good when I rode it and it oversped into main. The extra 1mph or whatever added enough G's to make the post block brake helix fun.



British people can make manual mode risky amirite?

Coasterkidmwm wrote:

The Brits can make it risky

are you referring to the Smiler accident by any chance?

[Coasterkidmwm]

...maybe.