Neal said:
I know you're joking Neal, but it's best not to name names in case people think you're serious.
The issue, really is that Blackpool is a bit of a paradox.
The park is popular, and has such a strong fan base because of the variety, uniqueness and quirky nature of its rides.
However, it's also almost universally panned for not having any "decent new investment".
The problem is (and a lot of Pleasure Beach fans know this) that they will have to remove the quirky and unique rides to put in something new.
They'll never be able to replace those quirky and unique rides with anything new which is also quirky and unique.
So, if Pleasure Beach remove the rides to make way for new ones - 50% of people will complain about the ride going. The other 50% of people will welcome a new ride - but then most will lament the loss of the old ride in favour of something bound not to satisfy them anyway.
In enthusiast terms, it's all a complete lost cause for PBB :lol:
For the Pleasure Beach, it's also tough as they are a proudly historic resort - and removing their history isn't something they will do lightly (even that Thompson woman
). Yet they know they have to keep up to survive.
In terms of listing and stuff.
Noah's Ark has been through too many changes to be listed on its own. The current interior and models are all too modern. At one point, it was decorated by a leading artist, and if it had been kept that way - the ride would have been a national treasure (and the carved animals worth a fortune each :lol: ). Sadly, it was all replaced (I can't remember exact dates, but it's when it was changed from the art deco style - early 80's I think, but please don't quote me on that). I'm sure that the current "architecture" is less than 50 years old throughout though - maybe just a few bits here and there of the original.
The basic boat and the mechanics are all original, but that's a machine - it's not something that can be listed. It's not a great case for Noah's Ark.
The listing application needed to be tied into a group application. So you would have Noah's Ark, Flying Machines, Big Dipper, Grand National, River Caves and Roller Coaster all lumped together. Individually, none of these items is worth consideration of listing.
Flying Machines - purely mechanical
Big Dipper - Original Emberton Station has gone. Track redesigned recently and is probably no longer available for consideration.
Grand National - Too many fires in the station.
River Caves - not really architecturally interesting enough.
Roller Coaster - Big Dipper is the older of the two - so there is another exemplar.
Now, we know that in ride terms, Blackpool is pretty much the last bastion for these. For that reason, a case can be made that while each may not deserve individual merit - the "collection" makes the entire set worth listing and a kind of "Pleasure Beach is special" listing application acceptable. Together, they are a historical marker of a point in time.
Now, this is where the problem arises. People may say "save Noah's Ark", but then say "but you can ditch Roller Coaster as long as we are left with Big Dipper". Others will lay value on Roller Coaster, but happily ditch the River Caves. There's a decent variation of all the possible options :lol:
Yet, to save one, you have to save them all. The argument then goes if you save them all - you condemn Pleasure Beach to death due to having no expansion options.
So you're stuck :lol: Ask for help and research and people get very upset when they find out why...
As for moving the ride? They moved the Southport one once - but I think it's a severely major task. In Southport it moved a few hundred yards - I can imagine the cost of moving the ride (in a workable condition) would be hundreds of thousands - money the Dreamland Trust don't have.