Screenshot / Mine Train Express
-
05-May 14
-
Fort Fun Adventureland
-
4 of 6
- Views 6,213
- Fans 3
- Comments 25
nedesigns
- Copyright © 2002-2024 New Element Designs
-
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
A mine train coaster without mine trains?
Hey look it's El Diablo!
This screen is a lot nicer than the other one in my opinion.
This is a really nice mine train layout. I love the transfer after the station and before the lift because for some reason arrow did that a lot, especially with their mine trains but people rarely do it in RCT.
Lovely work.
This is possibly the worst coaster ever?
But seriously, if you are serious and you think its actually crap RCT, then that is disappointing cause I thought it was an incredibly accurate Arrow Mine Train.
I like it. Also happy to see you continue Fort Fun.
Just because I get those comments a lot: Too brown
The fact that a thing like this exists in the real world doesn't make it any less terrible. If the layout were slightly different and build by a new member, I believe the screen would be torched to the ground.
Actually, considering he's going for realism, the fact that this type of layout DOES exist in the real world makes it a lot better.
Realism isn't always pretty, hence why I'm not it's biggest fan, but a realistic layout should be admired no matter how impractical it may seem.
An entirely flat B&M flying with 90% of the layout being brake sections is realistic, but that doesn't make it good in any way.
The fact you think this is terrible is mind boggling when there is far shittier layouts out there.
But each to there own I guess. The layout will be some peoples cup of tea and not others.
A commitment to realism does not have to mean a commitment to bad rides. That is a very short lift-to-lift even for an early arrow mine train - which, considering this is supposed to be 1982, isn't even the right style of layout.
The closest references are Trailblazer @ Hershey and Runaway Mine Train @ SFGA, which are both c.1974, single lift with MCBR, ditched the wooden structure, and use the terrain much more effectively. This layout looks more like 1962 than 1982 - I would suggest maybe the park bought it used, but even the old-old mine trains tend to be built onto/into hillsides.
I don't want to be overly critical of this if it really is just for fun, but it does feel a little lazy.
Cedar Creek Mine ride was built in 1969, so a little more recent. Id say that layout is equally crappy. Im not really a fan of this, (not my cup of tea as previously mentioned) but i can still appreciate the effort put into it.
I do agree with Liampie though, a newer member without your reputation would get railed for this screen. I think whether you agree or not, people tend to like older members stuff off of history, just as much as quality. Obviously Im just saying that as a rule of thumb, extreme examples would undermine my theory
So, with the landscape and foliage in place, the layout I chose took into consideration very many different styles and ideas before settling on this layout as it was the most natural layout to go with, that still fitted the Arrow style.
Anyhoo, as you said, the park is a bit of fun, but I certainly wouldn't say it was lazy at all with the amount of work that actually went into it.
This is very similar to the Runaway Mine Train at SFOT, so while the timeline would be a little off, the coaster design (complete with a million lift hills that in some cases only have one or two drops after them) is very believable. Take note of the last drop here which does absolutely nothing and you'll see what I mean.
That section after the first lift with the quick 180 degree turn are really spot-on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWJNTBNamZs
I'd just like to point out that Arrow were making similar layouts to this all the way into at least the '90s, so any timeline issues with this should be nulled:
http://rcdb.com/762.htm
In fact, from what I can see, the closest coaster to this time, 7 years away in 1989, had a similar style with numerous lift hills and a slow meandering layout:
http://rcdb.com/588.htm
Sure, a commitment to realism doesn't have to mean bad rides, but equally why does a commitment to realism have to mean good rides? Not all rides in real life are blockbuster top 10 rides, and this is still realistic.
i feel like making a poll on realistic but bad rides now, we're making this into a way bigger issue than what it is.