The American Adventure

[colin_p]

Will, I think you have the agent role mixed up, Interlink were not the agent, but the part-manufacturer of the ride systems. If anyone was the agent it was Mimafab. Anyhow, I think you may have been referring to the research I did some time ago into these companies: Source

[quote=""Colin_p""]I discovered this evening that Companies House (the UK register of companies) has a searchable website at www.companieshouse.gov.uk , so I did a bit of searching and came up with some interesting info on BCM: Date incorporated 11/07/1989, dissolved 22/01/1997, previous name Rapid 8586 Limited (this was presumably a ‘shelf’ company). No returns to Companies House since the early 1990s. So BCM wasn’t even formed back in 1987 when the American Adventure opened.....

On a long shot I looked up Mimafab as a previous company name, which turned up an interesting result. Mimafab was formed on 26/08/1986, but became Meridian Motioneering on 08/12/1988, based in Rotherham, South Yorks. Meridian Motioneering is a name I know of having done some work for the Gulliver’s park at Warrington. It would appear however that this company has not filed a return since 14/11/1988, but is still registered and was never would up, but at least they were active in 1986/7 when the American Adventure was under development.

Intrigued at that I looked up WGH, who it appears were incorporated on 15/02/1989 as a shelf company called Closechase Ltd, changing to Whitley, Geddes, Howarth Ltd on 04/04/1989 and to WGH Ltd on 01/05/1991. I do wonder if in some way WGH is the successor to Meridian Motioneering, the dates do look convenient. WGH were not trading when the park opened, but were around in 1994 to build the third drop to the flume.

Frustrated I looked again at Interlink’s website, where the company profile tells us they were formed in 1982 by John Hudd (the company appears to be registered in France with a UK office in Stroud, UK arm incorporated 1995). Looking at the ‘Principals’ page we find one Mike Anderson, sales director. It tells us Mike started Mimafab Ltd in 1983 – Bingo!

So my newly-informed guess is that the rides were manufactured by Interlink, but Mimafab did the ground work in the UK, possibly as agents and/or civil engineering contractors. It is possible that different staff of the firm went their separate ways, each taking credit for the rides, hence the muddle we find ourselves in.

If Mimafab were the original UK agent for Interlink, there is every chance that BCM became the new agent, whether linked to Mimafab financially or not – as they were basically selling the Interlink product it didn’t matter that the brochure showed rides they did not install themselves. It is even possible that later on WGH became the UK agent before Interlink opened their own UK branch, hence their claims on the Flume and Runaway Train. [/quote]

So, to summarise, my belief is that the rides are Interlink designs, with ride systems and possibly ride vehicles (logs in this case) manufactured in France. They may have even moulded the log flume channels over there, I assume they have the facilities to do the GRP moulding necessary for both logs and flumes. I think that Mimafab were acting as the agent and were the people working on the ground and doing the steel fabrication work, the name Mimafab indicates to me that this was their main line of work. I would hazzard a guess that MIMA are Mike Andersons initials!

And Big Country Motioneering? To be honest I think they just took the credit :!: But as outlined in the quote, they were the Interlink agent in the UK from 1989 onwards, after Cherokee Falls and the Runaway Train were built. There is a possibility that there may be links in personnel with Mimafab, but that is very difficult to establish.

[plasticboy]

Thankyou colin_p for taking the time to respond in such detail! Its clear to see why you are a platinum member! That information helped alot, thanks.


Is the tunnel/mountain structure still present? what is that used for now?


Cheers
Plasticboy

[arch!ved.org.uk]

[quote=""plasticboy""]Thankyou colin_p for taking the time to respond in such detail! Its clear to see why you are a platinum member! That information helped alot, thanks.


Is the tunnel/mountain structure still present? what is that used for now?


Cheers
Plasticboy[/quote]
Yepp, pictures on this page (onwards).

I also have some pictures which I took later in April, including one of the remnants of Nightmare Niagara. If all goes well, they'll be uploaded this evening.

[colin_p]

[quote=""plasticboy""]Thankyou colin_p for taking the time to respond in such detail! Its clear to see why you are a platinum member! That information helped alot, thanks.


Is the tunnel/mountain structure still present? what is that used for now?


Cheers
Plasticboy[/quote]

Many thanks plasticboy! I have been digging into the history of the park for nearly 10 years, which started with my investigation into the development of the miniature railway. I specifically researched the background to the Runaway Train and log flume as I was getting irritated by seeing different claims to who had built them!

Glad to be of assistance

[arch!ved.org.uk]

I've always been under the impression that Interlink LG do not by themselves have any manufacturing capabilities - they always act as an agent. I've never seen any evidence of them being any more than just an agent. I could of course be completely wrong !

I've uploaded the pictures I spoke of in my previous post. They should be quite interesting!

[colin_p]

[quote=""arch!ved.org.uk""]I've always been under the impression that Interlink LG do not by themselves have any manufacturing capabilities - they always act as an agent. I've never seen any evidence of them being any more than just an agent. I could of course be completely wrong ![/quote]

I suppose it would be possible for them to operate without any manufacturing capability, sub-contracting all but design work to specialist companies (such as Mimafab). From a business point of view the advantages in having less in the way of overheads (staff, premises, equipment etc) are great, but relying on sub-contractors for everything can be a nightmare, especially if they have other contracts on the go.

Can you point me in the direction of the evidence that Interlink are just agents? It does make sense as they are hardly the most prolific firm out there, they seem to do most business nowadays in second hand rides.

[arch!ved.org.uk]

[quote=""colin_p""][quote=""arch!ved.org.uk""]I've always been under the impression that Interlink LG do not by themselves have any manufacturing capabilities - they always act as an agent. I've never seen any evidence of them being any more than just an agent. I could of course be completely wrong ![/quote]

I suppose it would be possible for them to operate without any manufacturing capability, sub-contracting all but design work to specialist companies (such as Mimafab). From a business point of view the advantages in having less in the way of overheads (staff, premises, equipment etc) are great, but relying on sub-contractors for everything can be a nightmare, especially if they have other contracts on the go.

Can you point me in the direction of the evidence that Interlink are just agents? It does make sense as they are hardly the most prolific firm out there, they seem to do most business nowadays in second hand rides.[/quote]There is, quite honestly, no source. It's just the impression that I get. If they were manufacturing then, I'm certain they're not now. But again, I don't really have a source I'm afraid!

[Thomas]

I can remember going on this ride when i was about 9, it was pretty good ride i thought, i went at the beginning of this season and i was so sad to see the mountain holes bordered up, I'm sure they could of rebuilt it, even a shorter version with just the one drop in the mountain.

Thomas

[colin_p]

[quote=""arch!ved.org.uk""]There is, quite honestly, no source. It's just the impression that I get. If they were manufacturing then, I'm certain they're not now. But again, I don't really have a source I'm afraid! [/quote]

Having a further browse through Interlink's website, I found the following:

[quote=""Interlink LG""]Interlink's factory and office premises are situated in Southern France and UK, from where all design and manufacturing work is carried out. All attraction design and development work is completed on-site, while with a factory production area of 2,000 sq. m., Interlink has the in-house facilities to fabricate all the main elements of its rides and attractions, its various production capabilities including steel fabrication and GRP work. Additionally, however, outside suppliers/contractors are also used for the more specialist areas of production including the supply of proprietary items such as pumps, motors and gearboxes, ensuring a high degree of expertise at every stage of manufacture.[/quote]

Which I think clears up the issue of whether they can fabricate things for themseves or not :!: This may not have always been the case, but I'm sure they would have at least done the GRP mouldings for Cherokee Falls/Nightmare Niagara back in 1987, perhaps with Mimafab doing the steelwork etc.

[ukool]

i remeber once when we were queing up for it a kid who was about 8 climbed out of the boat just before the last drop and they had to close it and get people out of the que, my dad was not happy as we had been queing for ages. Dont remember owt else but i was only bout 10

[arch!ved.org.uk]

This was a huge problem for them. In the first few years of operation, the ride would nearly always stop at the top for around 10 seconds, giving people ample opportunity to chicken out and just step out of the boat and onto the evacuation platform. I believe this block section was in later years turned off, as by this point the ride never ran with all 26(?) logs on anyway.

It always used to alarm me that whole of the ride between drops 3 and 2 would frequently cut out (especially in later years), but drop 3 itself very rarely stopped. On the last day I visited in 2004, the ride cut out all 7 times I went on it. Actually, on one ride we got stopped at every block section on and between drops 1 and 2, which was actually great fun. We got up Lift 2 in three bursts, waiting a good couple of minutes for the ride to restart each time. After that ride, the Ride Op. curiously waited for us to finish the ride, then stopped it, and ran up Lift 3 with a pot of some kind of varnish or grease perhaps?

In retrospect, it should have been obvious that the ride was on the way out. I can't begin to tell you how much I miss it though.

[Anonymous]

I work at the American Adventure and there have been a few improvements. The Yankee Clipper has been refurbished and is working well. I know. I have operated it (which I might say I'm not too keen on!). Not one of my favourite rides but you are given the keys in the morning and thats what you get. It is very popular and very rarely I get to sit down when the gates open. And the Fire Brigade is a big favourite also. Especially on the hot days when the kids discover how to get themselves wet with it. Not to mention the adults when they get started. All good fun. :W

[Thomas]

Was on my bike today, went all the way round the outside of the park, it didn't look very busy, 300 cars tops that were parked, but i noticed the old mining thing was looking very clean and looked like it had just had paving around it so people can look at it, good to see they are looking after it.

Thomas

[Sazzle]

Nice work, Will. Tip for you though - rearrange the words next time. If you get to Uni and carry on, you'll be done for plagiarism and thrown off your course .

The park has been fairly busy of late what with the school holidays and although many may think its not very busy, it certainly beats the days of having ten cars in the carpark and the staff out number guests!

Recently went to Oakwood and had a look at Vertigo and I must say how much I now appreciate Skycoaster for its height. You get a lot more freefall at AA than Oakwood.

Any news on the Buffalo-scale development?

[Dara]

Does anybody know why there always had to be more weight in the back section of the boat than in the front. Whenever groups of 3 went on the ride there had to be 2 riders in the back and 1 in the front and for single riders they always made them sit in the back section. I thought this was particularly strange since the front sections of the logs were actually much bigger than the back.

Also, does anyone know how many logs were being used in it's final seasons and what the ride's throughput was? It must have been a very low throughput. The queue (on the rare occasions when there was one) always moved painfully slowly.

[plasticboy]

Does anybody know why there always had to be more weight in the back section of the boat than in the front.

I would say this was probably to ensure that after a drop there wouldnt be a huge wave of water coming over the front of the boat due to the weight? :

[Thomas]

Didn't no there was any development happening with the buffalo, it was working on Friday but looked very slow, slower than normal

Thomas

[colin_p]

[quote=""!Thomas!""]Didn't no there was any development happening with the buffalo, it was working on Friday but looked very slow, slower than normal

Thomas[/quote]

There isn't anything happening specifically with the Buffalo Thomas, but we are led to believe that a ride of similar size/stature could well be on the cards in the near future. As yet, there hasn't been a planning application for anything since the Mini Mine Rush.

[Dara]

Possibly but that isn't the case on the flume or on loggers leap at thorpe. Also if groups of 4 were in the boat then there would be an even bigger wall of water at the front. On Nightmare Niagara it was only really the first drop that got riders significantly drenched. The others just got you damp.

[Scream]

But what we want to know is if Six Flags are really going to take over AA - I sure hope so!