With a holding brake on the spike, it was probably only considered in early stages, simply because the only reason it would been considered would have been as insurance with the LIM as brakes. Since it would been proven the train can stop before the track switch in a E-stop (which would be automatically triggered if the track dosn't switch in time) the brakes would have been not needed. A example is Expedition Everest because the track spike is so close to the switch it has to stop on the spike (held by drive tires), in a interview with John Wardley he commented how it would have been much better to have more track as rolling up the spike and rolling down instantly is more thrilling. Which is what this coaster shall be doing.
When used it will really freak alot of the public out due to the sudden change in route after going backwards.
Evacuation stairs would not have been required if theres a holding brake on that point, but if there was a brake there would of needed to be some way to evacuate, early gerstlauer euro fighters gained the "thorpe amendment" which was a redesign of the vertical lift hill to alow a platform to be lifted so the ride can be evacuated on the lift (modern ones of that type instead have a anti roll back be magnetic and the lift motor slowly let down so the train moves slowly back down the lift hill)
But worst case senario I know of a ride that if it got evacuated in a certain point requires every guest (58 per train) to be given a harness and steel toe boots and lowed several feet to the ground due to the impracticality of having a evacuation platform in the specific spot (motion table).
been rambling, but the way the coaster will be holding the train at the bottom on the level rather than on the spike even if was chosen early in design is the best option all round
