Universal Great Britain - Speculation & Rumors

[xtpower]

@Alicia just dropped the Theme Stop video about the planning docs.

 

[yepthatguy]

What would stop someone flying over in a microlight if they wanted to?

Probably just wind and rain

 

[yepthatguy]

@Alicia just dropped the Theme Stop video about the planning docs.

26mins too! Awesome!

 

[rob@rar]

Nice update video from @Alicia. Comprehensive and highlighted all the important bits that we can glean from thousands of pages. That's a really good effort to digest it all and make something very watchable.

I had a slightly different reading about the phrase "Future Year". I don't think it actually means the second year of operation, but a point in the future when the growth in visitor numbers has stabilised to reach their longer term target. This might be year 2 or it might be year 5, depending on how well received the park is by domestic and international visitors. Rather than specifying a specific year by which they hope to reach this post-opening target, Universal have used the catch-all phrase "future year".

I'm slowly ploughing my way through the arcane annexes, currently looking the forecast models and timetabling issues for rail capacity to Wixams station. If I'm reading it correctly, the consultancy was contracted to do that work seems to indicate Universal told them that there might be an (unspecified) boost in visitor numbers from 2050, beyond the 'future year' targets that are specified in more detail throughout the documents. I wonder if this gives a small insight in to Universal's thinking about the very longterm development of the site? Single gate at opening with one hotel, then a steady build of convention centre, lots more hotels, more restaurants, etc (plus filling out expansion pads in the theme park). Then 20 years after opening a step change in attendance for some unspecified reason, at which we can hope and guess?

 

[Alicia]

Nice update video from @Alicia. Comprehensive and highlighted all the important bits that we can glean from thousands of pages. That's a really good effort to digest it all and make something very watchable.

I had a slightly different reading about the phrase "Future Year". I don't think it actually means the second year of operation, but a point in the future when the growth in visitor numbers has stabilised to reach their longer term target. This might be year 2 or it might be year 5, depending on how well received the park is by domestic and international visitors. Rather than specifying a specific year by which they hope to reach this post-opening target, Universal have used the catch-all phrase "future year".

I'm slowly ploughing my way through the arcane annexes, currently looking the forecast models and timetabling issues for rail capacity to Wixams station. If I'm reading it correctly, the consultancy was contracted to do that work seems to indicate Universal told them that there might be an (unspecified) boost in visitor numbers from 2050, beyond the 'future year' targets that are specified in more detail throughout the documents. I wonder if this gives a small insight in to Universal's thinking about the very longterm development of the site? Single gate at opening with one hotel, then a steady build of convention centre, lots more hotels, more restaurants, etc (plus filling out expansion pads in the theme park). Then 20 years after opening a step change in attendance for some unspecified reason, at which we can hope and guess?

Yea there seems to be some inconsistency with the future year terminology, but for the most part it just means not the first year.

Given that multiple research firms were hired to put together multiple packages, and not everything was prepared in house, there’s bound to be some contradictions. Some are saying by year 5 while others (like maybe Team Members needed) may mean year 2, while others, (like parking) mean all the way up till 2051.

But that’s why when breaking down the stats, I tried to focus on opening year.

 

[EllieB]

Yea there seems to be some inconsistency with the future year terminology, but for the most part it just means not the first year.

Given that multiple research firms were hired to put together multiple packages, and not everything was prepared in house, there’s bound to be some contradictions. Some are saying by year 5 while others (like maybe Team Members needed) may mean year 2, while others, (like parking) mean all the way up till 2051.

But that’s why when breaking down the stats, I tried to focus on opening year.

I guess they would want to be as vague as they can be so they're not setting specific expectations for anything in particular. If things go well, they can move sooner, if things take longer than expected to meet the targets they have they can take longer to make expansions.

 

[Alicia]

I guess they would want to be as vague as they can be so they're not setting specific expectations for anything in particular. If things go well, they can move sooner, if things take longer than expected to meet the targets they have they can take longer to make expansions.

If you ask me, they maybe could’ve been a bit more vague about opening year as well. Perhaps basing visitor projections based on existing theme parks with full build out, and not the actual park capacity you plan to build opening year—(and based on TEA numbers no less)—isn’t going to line up with the reality of how many visitors your new park will actually be able to handle the first year, but I digress.

 

[rob@rar]

If you ask me, they maybe could’ve been a bit more vague about opening year as well. Perhaps basing visitor projections based on existing theme parks with full build out, and not the actual park capacity you plan to build opening year—(and based on TEA numbers no less)—isn’t going to line up with the reality of how many visitors your new park will actually be able to handle the first year, but I digress.

I agree. I think those first year numbers are a bit of a hostage to fortune. They seem very ambitious, and so specific as to invite an assessment of whether your brand new theme park has succeeded or failed by the time you get to the end of Year 1.

 

[marsguo]

Yea there seems to be some inconsistency with the future year terminology, but for the most part it just means not the first year.

Given that multiple research firms were hired to put together multiple packages, and not everything was prepared in house, there’s bound to be some contradictions. Some are saying by year 5 while others (like maybe Team Members needed) may mean year 2, while others, (like parking) mean all the way up till 2051.

But that’s why when breaking down the stats, I tried to focus on opening year.

Possible they're accounting for the missing months in 2031 (assuming they open in May or something, and not January), and in year 2 they'll have the full 12 months of operation and all those additional visitors + a more settled park

 

[yepthatguy]

@Alicia Thank you for the great video and breakdown.

Like others have said, it’s quite superb.

Awesome work.

 

[xtpower]

They might have based the first year numbers on what Beijing did in it's first year.

 

[Alicia]

They might have based the first year numbers on what Beijing did in it's first year.

Weirdly though, basing it on TEA’s reporting on what Beijing did its first year—despite the research firm working directly for Universal.

 

[Altonsky]

I think they’ll do very, very well the first year. 8.5 million well, who knows but I don’t think they’ll be disappointed.

There’s just a huge appetite for it, even amongst friends of mine who aren’t theme park enthusiasts.

If Alton towers in its biggest year (2010) pulled in 3.2 million visitors domestically and they’re shut for 5 months of the year I don’t think 8.5 million is out of the question. Especially when the population of the UK has increased substantially since 2010.

The 50/50 split of domestic/international guests in the first year (if I’m remembering that correctly) makes sense and doesn’t seem to over the top.

They’d only have to pull in another 0.8 million visitors domestically to reach that 50% split and they’d have another 4 months to do it compared to Alton Towers in 2010.

And you also need to factor in travelling to the park, Alton towers is a pain to get to for a lot of people and 3.2 million people still made that journey, this won’t face the same hurdles.

 

[rob@rar]

The 50/50 split of domestic/international guests in the first year (if I’m remembering that correctly) makes sense and doesn’t seem to over the top.

Universal said their target was 70:30 (domestic:international) in the opening year, and 52:48 in an unspecified 'future year'.