Monorails to no longer operate during Evening Extra Magic Hours

[morethananyonex]

OK - so I didn't read all 50 pages, but where did it say that the monorail wouldn't run for MNSSHP and MVMCP? The original post only mentioned EMH....

Without going back and finding the posts, the internal memo a CM posted mentioned EMH and events (which can be taken to mean the parties). The article in the Orlando Sentinel however said that Disney had not yet made a decision about how they were going to handle party nights.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Without going back and finding the posts, the internal memo a CM posted mentioned EMH and events (which can be taken to mean the parties). The article in the Orlando Sentinel however said that Disney had not yet made a decision about how they were going to handle party nights.

Here you go..

Okay disregard my theory about MNSSHP and MVMCP I found this

During Magic Kingdom Extra Magic Hours or Events, the Resort Monorail runs 1 hour after regular park hours. Return service from evening Extra Magic Hours in the parks will be supported by watercraft (where applicable) and bus transportation

Source for CM's

 

[Wadecool]

Am I allowed to swim?

Technically, pool hopping from Pop to GF would be allowed, since they would be the same price. I'm picturing the scene in Caddyshack where the caddies take over the Bushwood country club pool.

 

[Momtomouselover]

It really is getting harder to swallow the rates going up on resorts, tickets, food, etc. but yet amenities and benefits are being cut out. Are they thinking that most people won't notice? Perhaps most people are first time visitors for there one "trip of a lifetime" and if they don't have anything to compare it to than its ok. Frustrating indeed! It will certainly deter me from staying at the Poly and perhaps the GF too.

 

[E&K's Dad]

I'm sort of out of the loop on the current conversation, but I'm pretty certain when we were at Disney last February, Epcot was open until midnight on an EMH.

Georgia-you would be correct. There are also weekend nights during food and wine with 10 pm closings.

 

[kaytieeldr]

But those would be regular park hours - not EMH or special events, so the Epcot monorail would run until 11PM. That's actually better, because Illuminations would have been at its normal time so everybody should easily be out of the park by an hour after closing.

 

[kaligal]

Are they thinking that most people won't notice?

Yup. This has been going on for years.

They keep increasing prices and cutting back. They're trying to see how little they can offer and still get people in. They won't stop until they lose their customers.

They're hell-bent on putting themselves out of business.

It's so hard to believe that the person in charge isn't smarter.

Because I really love WDW, it is so hard to watch them go down the drain and not be able to stop it.

 

[crazy4wdw]

Article in today's Orlando Sentinel:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/the-...world-monorail-hours-20110711,0,1288947.story

 

[bicker]

There were no Extra Magic Hours in 1971, either.

Indeed... that is a very good point.

And there was no Expedition Everest, or Animal Kingdom Park, for that matter. The expectation that somehow "how things were" is sacrosanct is unsupportable. Things change over time - Walt Disney even said that things should change, and since the beginning attractions and services have come and gone, to keep the enterprise vibrant and long-lasting. Running WDW into the ground by failing to acknowledge and respect the limitations of reality (including the reality that things cost money, and the reality that things don't last forever and have to be rebuilt or replaced over time) isn't a good foundation for the future.

Actually all I asserted was that maybe more folks would decide to check out the offsite bargains in light of EMH changes (monorail limitations and character elimination), thus affecting their ability to keep their rooms filled. That's a "grand assertion" or "wild leap"? I actually find you labelling it as such to be a wild leap. Unless of course you have some sort of reliable metric to back it up.

Actually, what you wrote was, "Ultimately though, they still have a LOT of rooms to fill on a daily basis. And EMH has always been a great way of doing that." The loss of EMH, entirely, wouldn't result in empty rooms - we know that because rooms weren't empty after Surprising Mornings were discontinued and before EMH was introduced. And here, we're not even talking about no EMH - we're only looking at the prospect of people doing evening EMH at MK having to take buses back to their hotels. If the absence of EMH entirely didn't result in lots of empty rooms, implying that this relatively small change in transporatation related to EMH would have a significant impact in that regard is indeed a "wild leap".

Oh my gosh! I can certainly see where you get your screen name from, bicker! Don't you ever get tired of it all?! Life's too short to be so argumentative.

Actually, what I was posting was on-topic replies to the issue. I'm not sure how your comment would be categorized.

Seriously.... you want me to prove my opinion? I'm a poster on a discussion board, not the prosecution.

I agree with you about that: You don't need to prove your opinion. No one does. However, please do not object to people pointing out the lack of foundation for your opinions. That's part of the discussion process. Please stop complaining about me posting my disagreements to what you've posted.

 

[RickM]

I haven't read anything above, though giving the Monorails and Monorail drivers a rest for safety reasons is nothing more than a cover. This is being done strictly for cost cutting purposes. I wonder if there's going to add an additional boat from the MK to the GF and Poly after closing time. You know they've been counting passengers on the Monorail during Extra Magic hours for some time now, as well as passengers on the boat from the MK to the GF and Poly as well.

Care to share where you got these "facts" from?

Here's the bottom line as far as I see it.

The current monorail fleet are old...very old. When they were introduced they had 12 trains, they now have 11, meaning extra work for the rest of them especially at peak times.

The fleet was designed to carry a specific weight, and lets face it....people have got a LOT bigger since their introduction.

Then they took the center supports out of the carriages to allow for greater space, something the monorails were not designed to do, thus increasing the weight even more.

Now, they have likely replaced the motors a few times now as I'm sure they cant last long, especially going up those inclines with a full load!

Finally, they have greater traffic clearance, the motors sit idle for a lot longer, allowing them to overheat very easily...that combined with the inclines from a stopped position cant do them much good at all.

Based on past history, the trains should have been replaced about 4 years ago. For whatever reason, they have not been (Likely cost cutting in this area).

Because they are now so old, you would expect more regular maintenance is required, so instead of taking several trains off during peak times (I.E 9:00AM - 9:00PM) they take them off during EMA, allowing them a couple of hours extra time to perform work on the motors...make no mistake, its not a simple case of checking the oil dip stick...these babies require several hours work each every day.

So, the short term solution for now is to take them offline earlier to perform work. The long term solution is of course new trains, which I'm sure they will be looking at. Heck, there are some personal pod style monorails that would actually fit their tracks so maybe they are looking at them. They would work out cheaper and more reliable to have ~30 of them on constant rotation.

 

[bicker]

I don't understand how replacing one form of transportation with another to/from four points for a few hours a night a few nights a week in any way equates to the Aesop fable cited, and I think anybody who read the fable would have to agree.

There is clearly a lot of hyperbole being thrown around - double-hyperbole really because folks are even complaining about being called-out on posting hyperbole.

It's apparent you're not aware that while yes, Disney is a profitable corporation overall and can afford to pay dividends to its owners, the bulk of its income goes toward paying expenses.

Good points all. I think some of the undercurrent is a perception that Disney should be "breaking even" on WDW - that its revenues should be applied toward its operating costs, and that the two should therefore reflect each other perfectly. Enhancements (like the aforementioned adding of Expedition Everest) are, by some, assumed to be gifts from some external source, rather than funded from theme park revenues. And more alien than that seems to be the idea that the parks - the whole company - actually exists to serve the best financial interests of its owners, above all else. That fiduciary obligation is too-often ignored.

 

[Aliceacc]

I haven't read any but the first page, so please forgive me if I repeat.

Disney can, of course, set any schedules it chooses.

And as a family of (mostly) morning people, the change would not effect us at all, even if we were going back to the Poly next year-- we do morning EMH, not evening.

But if, say, my kids were in college, I think it would make us less likely to choose the GF or the Poly. (You can still walk back to the CR, so it's a non-issue there.) One of the huge selling points for those resorts is the convenience of being on the monorail. All the other ameneties were secondary to my family when we started looking-- we wanted that monorail access. If we couldn't get it, especially late at night if that mattered, I think we would spend less money and simply stay elsewhere. I really hate those busses!

I'm sure Disney has done the market research and knows what it's doing.

Bottom line though: Disney has a primary responsibility to its bottom line. In this freefalling economy, they (like everyone else) have to get the most bang for their buck. I can understand that this may be necessary. And ultimately it wouldn't effect my family at all.

But I can see how the Epcot resorts and the CR could see more bookings as a result.

 

[GadgetRick]

But those two examples are precursors to a bigger problem. Parts don't start to fall off, even only two, and then suddenly stop. It is when you have had one or two incidents that you make adjustments and act, not after the problem escalates. Preventative maintenance has to be done to keep the monorail system from getting to a state that makes them unsafe for operation and I don't think that state is all that far off considering their age and their increased downtime. Both of these things were echoed in Jason's article.

Widening the time window for maintenance in the fashion they did has two advantages. First, it means the trains run less hours and that helps keep some additional wear and tear off of them. Second, it gives them more time to make the most needed repairs so that the trains don't get any worse.

It is very possible that if they didn't do this now then in the future (maybe a year, maybe 2, or maybe a month) the trains would reach a point at which they were unsafe for guests and Disney instead of limiting the hours a little like they did says "Due to the state of our monorail system we will be closing them completely for an indefinite amount of time to perform the needed maintenance"

Regardless, there will be transportation alternatives and just like when the roads at home are under construction they might be less convenient but they'll get you there. Such is life and I'm not going to let it alter my vacation plans if I was planning on going. I have no problem going with the flow and adjusting to the new reality.

Oh puleeeeze... Listen to yourself. The sky is falling! The monorails are about to be unsafe! We're all gonna die!!!!

I suppose we should be worried about EVERYTHING in WDW then since many of the attractions are as old as the monorails. Remember, they have more than enough monorails so they're not ALL RUNNING AT THE SAME TIME. Why do they have more than needed? So they can put one in service should one breaks down and so they can do maintenance on them as well.

You make it sound like these things are about to just fall apart on the tracks when this just isn't true in any way, shape or form.

 

[bicker]

Oh puleeeeze... Listen to yourself. The sky is falling! The monorails are about to be unsafe! We're all gonna die!!!! ... You make it sound like these things are about to just fall apart on the tracks when this just isn't true in any way, shape or form.

Isn't that what a lot of the critics of this change doing - predicting that Disney will have lots more empty rooms as a result of this small change? If anything, that's far more of a stretch than anything Firedancer said.

 

[pampam]

Oh puleeeeze... Listen to yourself. The sky is falling! The monorails are about to be unsafe! We're all gonna die!!!!

I suppose we should be worried about EVERYTHING in WDW then since many of the attractions are as old as the monorails. Remember, they have more than enough monorails so they're not ALL RUNNING AT THE SAME TIME. Why do they have more than needed? So they can put one in service should one breaks down and so they can do maintenance on them as well.

You make it sound like these things are about to just fall apart on the tracks when this just isn't true in any way, shape or form.

The monorails don't run on air. Its a monorail

Perhaps they are fixing the rails.

 

[kimgof]

Ok, so I started thinking about things...times we took the monorail and such. Didn't the monorail always run pretty late no matter when the parks closed before? It didn't shut down an hour after park closing before, did it? I can't imagine that if MK closed at 7 or 8 that the monorail previously shut down at 8 or 9. And if I'm right then that means that they are cutting back on more than just EMH hours of operation! Sorry if you guys posted this before and I am just understanding....need some more coffee. LOL

 

[snykymom]

When we stayed at BLT on our last trip most of the time at night we did walk home. The monorail was so packed we from all the people trying to get on we just thought it quicker to walk. We are DVC members and one of the main reasons we bought BLT was for the monorail. Epcot is what bothers me for the resort folks. We love staying at BLT because we can cut using the buses at 2 parks. We drive to Animal Kingdom and DHS so for us it is never using a bus that makes our trip happier. Now we have to. So what am I getting for my money now? Not much thats for sure. Very unhappy by this as I am sure many are.

No, you don't. You can still drive to Epcot from BLT, the same as you do to AK and DHS.

The monorails don't run on air. Its a monorail

Perhaps they are fixing the rails.

Precisely! Concrete does not last forever. Rail beds do not last forever. Wiring does not last forever.

Right now, in my major metropolitan city, the commuter rails are being fixed. For 3 months, they have eliminated a particular stop on all trains, including rush hour ones, and riders must get off at a different stop and either take a subway or a bus back to where they wanted to go. This is so that they can divert the trains onto other tracks that don't go to that station, and close an entire corridor. They are fixing the rails, the supports, the beds and the ties. We'll see if they get it done on time or if the inconvenience to the paying public will continue longer. (And the fare for the trip has not been reduced to make up for the inconvenience.)

Yes, I know it's only for three months, but that's taking the system out of commission entirely. And there are no concrete supports or other "flying" sturctures necessary to maintain on a regular basis.

Do I like the change? No. But I am not willing to say that it is merely an "excuse" for cost-cutting and has little or nothing to do with maintenance.

 

[hookedonears]

So, do you have any actual facts to back up any of this, or are these things you just somehow (automagically?) "know"?

Scott

Because I said so.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I haven't read any but the first page, so please forgive me if I repeat.

Disney can, of course, set any schedules it chooses..
I'm sure Disney has done the market research and knows what it's doing.

Bottom line though: Disney has a primary responsibility to its bottom line. In this freefalling economy, they (like everyone else) have to get the most bang for their buck. I can understand that this may be necessary. And ultimately it wouldn't effect my family at all.

But I can see how the Epcot resorts and the CR could see more bookings as a result.

Disney's bottom line, no longer has room for Magic. I think, TIIC have lost sight of what set Disney, above the rest. They have a different mindset, resulting in Disney's slide, down that slippery slope, and are becoming **gulp** generic and average.

 

[GadgetRick]

Do I like the change? No. But I am not willing to say that it is merely an "excuse" for cost-cutting and has little or nothing to do with maintenance.

But why? I mean, other than the people making it seem like the monorail is a ticking timebomb, there hasn't been a lot to indicate this is the actual reason the change has been made. As others have said, if it were for maintenance a) Disney would have been touting it--ok they finally said something about it in an article but they're hardly saying that's the reason for the change, b) why would they do this in the middle of one of the busiest times of the year while they (typically) schedule general maintenance for less busy times of the year, and c) how bad could it really be if they're only shutting it down for this amount of time????

Yet, there have been numerous things which Disney has done in recent years which shows they are maximizing profits--not something I begrudge them, btw, they're a for profit company. I understand why they do these things but it doesn't mean I have to like them.

So, on one hand, there is little evidence to suggest the monorails are about to start killing masses of people while there is a lot of evidence to suggest Disney has been cutting things in recent years in order to be more profitable. Which one is right? I don't know but I certainly believe the latter reason given past history (keeping in mind past history is not a guarantee of future performance)...