Tron Lightcycle Run coming to MK

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eric Smith

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
If the delay were only a year the standard protective materials on any Fla construction project would be sufficient, You 'seal' a site when it's going to be 2 years or longer before you plan to restart. Sealing is both expensive and labor intensive plus it involves putting anti corrosive coatings on exposed metal ETC. So 2-5 years at a minimum a decade if Disney is feeling poor,

Current management no longer cares about ugly sight lines it was those wasteful imagineers who cared about worthless things like sight lines, Now we have professional managers who care about IMPORTANT metrics like sales per sq ft per hour and PRGS.
Are you an expert on construction? Why would the bother working on steel outside if they’re just going to stop construction?
 

ford91exploder

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Are you an expert on construction? Why would the bother working on steel outside if they’re just going to stop construction?

Physical plant construction has been a major part of most projects during my career and I've learned more about construction than I ever wanted to learn. mostly on how to keep the GC and subs honest. As to why steel construction continues without comparing the prints to the structure I cannot definitely say,

Usually thats done because once steel erection reaches a certain point you must finish it to prevent the structure from distorting due to missing supports. As a friend of mine says 'its only metal it always loses in the end'.
 

TiggerBouncy

DIS Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
You 'seal' a site when it's going to be 2 years or longer before you plan to restart. Sealing is both expensive and labor intensive plus it involves putting anti corrosive coatings on exposed metal ETC. So 2-5 years at a minimum a decade if Disney is feeling poor,

So, explain this to me.... If you want to have a building that is going to stand for a long time and against bad weather, wouldn't you want to do the same anti-corrosive treatment anyway? I mean what's the difference between good building and 'sealing' other than just closing a few doors that you can later pound open (and I understand added a few vent shafts, which again may not be a bad idea anyway in Florida weather)?I did a little investigative work on google, and you would have thought this "common practice" would be found SOMEWHERE. I did not find any credence to this "sealing a site" to hold up for 2+ years of halting construction. The MOST I have seen is that closing the exterior walls makes sense to hold up against the elements - whether or not you plan on halting construction - at least until you plan on putting in whatever permanent protective function is going to go there. But it's not like you are putting in some great expense to do this, and it makes darned sense - even if you plan to keep working. You don't want rain to get in the building. That's just common sense.

What you are saying would make more sense to me if they were erecting large steel barriers around the site to protect it, or some other "permanent and not good building practice" structures that are not part of the ride.

Current management no longer cares about ugly sight lines it was those wasteful imagineers who cared about worthless things like sight lines, Now we have professional managers who care about IMPORTANT metrics like sales per sq ft per hour and PRGS.

Even if that were true (and I do not believe it, and would love to see any evidence you have that Disney has stopped caring about sight lines, since I have seen no evidence of that), those professional managers would still look at Tron as having cost millions of dollars already. It's a pre-designed ride that does not require expensive testing or design work. It's mostly done and it's using up valuable sq ft (to your point). It makes far more fiscal sense to finish it up and use it when the capacity requires it, then having it sit idle while making new projects. It won't take decades for Disney to need that square footage. We know (and they know) there is a thirst for the parks to open back up capacity in 1-2 years. No bean counter in the world would vote to make a new ride as opposed to finishing Tron. The only possible argument could be that you believe that the Magic Kingdom currently has capacity to spare, and we know that's not a true statement - they have already lost Stitch and MK was overrun pre-pandemic pretty bad. So unless you (or they) believe that Disney is going to be suffering severe capacity restraints for over 5 years, it just doesn't make sense to hold it until 2032.
 
Last edited:

BrianL

Doom Buggy Driver
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Even if that were true (and I do not believe it, and would love to see any evidence you have that Disney has stopped caring about sight lines, since I have seen no evidence of that), those professional managers would still look at Tron as having cost millions of dollars already.

There are folks here who are incredibly sensitive about sight lines. I have read no end of complaining about how a certain building doesn't fit, or looks terrible, like the ride building for GotG or Skyliner stanchion's over the France pavilion. That stuff doesn't really bother me that much, but to some it takes them out of the park experience.
 

hertamaniac

DIS Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Usually thats done because once steel erection reaches a certain point you must finish it to prevent the structure from distorting due to missing supports. As a friend of mine says 'its only metal it always loses in the end'.

You are correct. Method of joints and sections is a common design attribute used to size beams/supports and cross-members. In addition, the risk of high winds creating lateral shear (such as a hurricane), the entire structure needs to be secured as designed.
 

ford91exploder

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
There are folks here who are incredibly sensitive about sight lines. I have read no end of complaining about how a certain building doesn't fit, or looks terrible, like the ride building for GotG or Skyliner stanchion's over the France pavilion. That stuff doesn't really bother me that much, but to some it takes them out of the park experience.

Precisely - the whole Disney experience as designed by Walt and the Nine, Was designed to keep you in the moment. The old hub at WDW was designed to HIDE the castle from main street so when you got there you had a forest behind you and a beautiful German castle in front of you.

the reasson WDW has the utilidors was to prevent ‘space cowboys’ basically so that the CM’s went o b stage they would be appropriately attired for their land.

the Deforestation of the hub because the marketing drones wanted ‘The Castle’ to be visible at all times. The destruction of the Poly’s fountain was done for the same reason so you could see a tiny german castle whilst being in the south seas.

i liked the old way a lot better than the drive in theater the castle and hub have become and the ugly sight lines which have become common like GoTG and the skyway pylons.
 

ford91exploder

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
So, explain this to me.... If you want to have a building that is going to stand for a long time and against bad weather, wouldn't you want to do the same anti-corrosive treatment anyway? I mean what's the difference between good building and 'sealing' other than just closing a few doors that you can later pound open (and I understand added a few vent shafts, which again may not be a bad idea anyway in Florida weather)?I did a little investigative work on google, and you would have thought this "common practice" would be found SOMEWHERE. I did not find any credence to this "sealing a site" to hold up for 2+ years of halting construction. The MOST I have seen is that closing the exterior walls makes sense to hold up against the elements - whether or not you plan on halting construction - at least until you plan on putting in whatever permanent protective function is going to go there. But it's not like you are putting in some great expense to do this, and it makes darned sense - even if you plan to keep working. You don't want rain to get in the building. That's just common sense.

What you are saying would make more sense to me if they were erecting large steel barriers around the site to protect it, or some other "permanent and not good building practice" structures that are not part of the ride.



Even if that were true (and I do not believe it, and would love to see any evidence you have that Disney has stopped caring about sight lines, since I have seen no evidence of that), those professional managers would still look at Tron as having cost millions of dollars already. It's a pre-designed ride that does not require expensive testing or design work. It's mostly done and it's using up valuable sq ft (to your point). It makes far more fiscal sense to finish it up and use it when the capacity requires it, then having it sit idle while making new projects. It won't take decades for Disney to need that square footage. We know (and they know) there is a thirst for the parks to open back up capacity in 1-2 years. No bean counter in the world would vote to make a new ride as opposed to finishing Tron. The only possible argument could be that you believe that the Magic Kingdom currently has capacity to spare, and we know that's not a true statement - they have already lost Stitch and MK was overrun pre-pandemic pretty bad. So unless you (or they) believe that Disney is going to be suffering severe capacity restraints for over 5 years, it just doesn't make sense to hold it until 2032.

you are buying into the ‘sunk cost fallacy’ google it,

Many times its just cheaper to walk away no matter how much you have spent US military is famous for this its called abandon in place the most famous example is ‘The Pyramid’ which was the hub of the Safeguard ABM system.

At the moment Disney has 3 choices, Finish, Mothball or Demo. Sealing the structure allows them to delay the decision for as long as 10-15 years. Or they could decide to finish it in 6 months. Sealing buys the management team time, and they rightly figure no one is going to cancel trips because of a half finished construction project
 

ford91exploder

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
So, explain this to me.... If you want to have a building that is going to stand for a long time and against bad weather, wouldn't you want to do the same anti-corrosive treatment anyway? I mean what's the difference between good building and 'sealing' other than just closing a few doors that you can later pound open (and I understand added a few vent shafts, which again may not be a bad idea anyway in Florida weather)?I did a little investigative work on google, and you would have thought this "common practice" would be found SOMEWHERE. I did not find any credence to this "sealing a site" to hold up for 2+ years of halting construction. The MOST I have seen is that closing the exterior walls makes sense to hold up against the elements - whether or not you plan on halting construction - at least until you plan on putting in whatever permanent protective function is going to go there. But it's not like you are putting in some great expense to do this, and it makes darned sense - even if you plan to keep working. You don't want rain to get in the building. That's just common sense.

What you are saying would make more sense to me if they were erecting large steel barriers around the site to protect it, or some other "permanent and not good building practice" structures that are not part of the ride.



Even if that were true (and I do not believe it, and would love to see any evidence you have that Disney has stopped caring about sight lines, since I have seen no evidence of that), those professional managers would still look at Tron as having cost millions of dollars already. It's a pre-designed ride that does not require expensive testing or design work. It's mostly done and it's using up valuable sq ft (to your point). It makes far more fiscal sense to finish it up and use it when the capacity requires it, then having it sit idle while making new projects. It won't take decades for Disney to need that square footage. We know (and they know) there is a thirst for the parks to open back up capacity in 1-2 years. No bean counter in the world would vote to make a new ride as opposed to finishing Tron. The only possible argument could be that you believe that the Magic Kingdom currently has capacity to spare, and we know that's not a true statement - they have already lost Stitch and MK was overrun pre-pandemic pretty bad. So unless you (or they) believe that Disney is going to be suffering severe capacity restraints for over 5 years, it just doesn't make sense to hold it until 2032.

Anti corrosion coatings are a lot different than paint. They can be welded through and are easily removable with the ‘right’ solvents, they also tend to be mildly toxic as in apply with gloves and respirators and they cost 10-20 times much as paint.

similar coatings are used on ships and aircraft in unpainted areas. Zinc Chromate is one Alondine is another

the key is WDW is one of the few Disney business units which is making money. Disney is going to be drawing cash from WDW to prop up its currently unprofitable businesses. So not finishing TRON frees up tens of millions per month for other things in the Disney universe.

as to Sight lines, The ‘Drive in Theaters’ once known as the hub. GoTG show building, Skyway Pylons, The Marriott Tower in CBR , the DVC addtion at GF. I could go on.

i used to be a hard core pixie duster, then reality rudely butted in and where once there was a balance between making money and guest experience. Now its all naked greed on the part of the Mouse
 
Last edited:

TiggerBouncy

DIS Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
you are buying into the ‘sunk cost fallacy’ google it,

Many times its just cheaper to walk away no matter how much you have spent US military is famous for this its called abandon in place the most famous example is ‘The Pyramid’ which was the hub of the Safeguard ABM system.

At the moment Disney has 3 choices, Finish, Mothball or Demo. Sealing the structure allows them to delay the decision for as long as 10-15 years. Or they could decide to finish it in 6 months. Sealing buys the management team time, and they rightly figure no one is going to cancel trips because of a half finished construction project

I'm a project manager. I know all about sunk cost fallacy. I AM one of those very people (although not working for Disney) who you so eloquently describe as "professional managers who care about IMPORTANT metrics like sales per sq ft per hour and PRGS" (although in my industry the metrics are different). You have failed to convince me that the cost of "sealing" the site is only worth it if you are delaying for 2+ years. In fact, you just changed your mind and said 6 months. I BUY SIX MONTHS. I do not buy that they would not have sealed it unless they were delaying it for 5+ (or even 2+) years.

You have also failed to convince me WHY this would be a failed project that would be worth dropping? That is not even in the plans. It would make ZERO sense to bulldoze what they have done already since it's a KNOWN SUCCESSFUL coaster that is already in operation and well liked at another park. Disney excels at cookie-cutter rides, and it's SO MUCH EASIER to take a ride that already works and drop it in another park.
So - popular attraction - check
space requirements met - check
crowd eater - check
risk - low
and it's a project that is well along - over 50% (if you include design costs and material costs).

You would have to be the most moronic project manager in history to terminate that project. Demo is pretty much not a reasonable option. This is not a sunk cost project. So we are down to Finish or Mothball.

I ask you again - why is the "Cost of mothballing" as you explain it only worth it if it's 2+ years? Or is it really only 6 months? Which makes total sense by the way if what they have really done (which makes even more sense) is to reduce the crew working on it - meaning they are prioritizing the canopy (to protect against the elements) and then that crew (or the same amount of manpower) will be transitioned to the inside work. I.E. slowing down the burn rate of the project by extending the schedule - which again MAKES TOTAL SENSE.

Again, this sounds to me like a less than one year slip (and the more I think about it, the more it makes sense that what they have done is extend the schedule by reducing the manpower and thus reducing the burn rate) and not a mothball of 2+ year operation.

Can I ask you again to explain (since you say you are knowledgeable about it) what are the one-time non-recouperable costs associated with "sealing a site" that only makes it worth the expense if you are holding for 2+ years? I figure that must be a number above $3 million at least to justify. So where are these millions spent? Causing building a door over the track is like.... a couple hundred dollars - a crew of 2 could do it in a day.
 

TiggerBouncy

DIS Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Anti corrosion coatings are a lot different than paint. They can be welded through and are easily removable with the ‘right’ solvents, they also tend to be mildly toxic as in apply with gloves and respirators and they cost 10-20 times much as paint.

similar coatings are used on ships and aircraft in unpainted areas. Zinc Chromate is one Alondine is another

the key is WDW is one of the few Disney business units which is making money. Disney is going to be drawing cash from WDW to prop up its currently unprofitable businesses. So not finishing TRON frees up tens of millions per month for other things in the Disney universe.

as to Sight lines, The ‘Drive in Theaters’ once known as the hub. GoTG show building, Skyway Pylons, The Marriott Tower in CBR , the DVC addtion at GF. I could go on.

i used to be a hard core pixie duster, then reality rudely butted in and where once there was a balance between making money and guest experience. Now its all naked greed on the part of the Mouse

Okay, so I follow some of that. But lets be realistic - a ride like Tron is maybe a $100 million dollar ride. Take out the already expensed design costs. Take out the land work, erecting the building, and some of the track - we are easily 40-50% or more in. So there is MAYBE 50 million to go - and that's high. I doubt they are burning tens of millions a month on it. They are committed to the canopy and structural aspects. That's going to be another 10-20 mill. The theming and inside track is all that could possibly be left. They would save MAYBE 30 mill by cutting it early.

In Disney's budget, 30 million isn't going to make or break anything significant. And if the cost of mothballing it is 3+ million plus hundred of thousands of lost dollars a month that it's sitting there, it won't make sense to sit on it for very long. It makes TOTAL SENSE to me to do the expense you talk about above so you can slow down the burn rate - and I agree that slowing the capital expenditure so you can use it on other projects MAKES SENSE.

But this 2-5 year hold or even longer - decades as some claim - 2032.... those are laughable.
 

hertamaniac

DIS Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Which makes total sense by the way if what they have really done (which makes even more sense) is to reduce the crew working on it - meaning they are prioritizing the canopy (to protect against the elements) and then that crew (or the same amount of manpower) will be transitioned to the inside work. I.E. slowing down the burn rate of the project by extending the schedule - which again MAKES TOTAL SENSE.

I'm a veteran PMP. That being said, my observations on various technology and build projects:

Manpower is not the same from crew to crew. Efficiency of each crew member varies depending on core expertise. So if they need to finish the inside elements that are the same as the outside (like ride track), then it ports over nicely. But you can't take a track welder/builder and expect them to work on the electrical/magnetic/themed elements at any real efficiency.

Most, if not all, projects that have had reduced burn rates via resourcing, extend the schedule but not in a 1:1 ratio. The intangibles of resource availability due to conflicting projects come into play. And in many projects, a restart to get back to maximum efficiency pre-shutdown incurs a further project completion delay. I can't tell you how many times the Gantt's would be kicked down the road and the stakeholders would be shocked that the delay extended beyond the 1:1 ratio. A seasoned PM knows this and accounts for it in the schedule build-out(s).
 

TiggerBouncy

DIS Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
I'm a veteran PMP. That being said, my observations on various technology and build projects:

Manpower is not the same from crew to crew. Efficiency of each crew member varies depending on core expertise. So if they need to finish the inside elements that are the same as the outside (like ride track), then it ports over nicely. But you can't take a track welder/builder and expect them to work on the electrical/magnetic/themed elements at any real efficiency.

Most, if not all, projects that have had reduced burn rates via resourcing, extend the schedule but not in a 1:1 ratio. The intangibles of resource availability due to conflicting projects come into play. And in many projects, a restart to get back to maximum efficiency pre-shutdown incurs a further project completion delay. I can't tell you how many times the Gantt's would be kicked down the road and the stakeholders would be shocked that the delay extended beyond the 1:1 ratio. A seasoned PM knows this and accounts for it in the schedule build-out(s).

Certainly, that's why I indicated it may not be the same crew later on. I do not know the skill sets required for all the phases or where they are at right now. For example, I would expect the welders would not be the same people doing the theming. But it is certainly reasonable for Disney to say "okay,. you can have this much money per month instead of this much".

I agree with you that it's not extending it out at a 1:1. It will almost certainly cost Disney more money over the entirety of the project to slow down Tron compared to just getting it done. However, even though it costs more money, the burn rate is slower so the monthly outlay is lower. Sometimes that's preferable given what else is going on. My point is that this makes more sense to me than just stopping the project altogether for 12 years.
 

Eric Smith

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
you are buying into the ‘sunk cost fallacy’ google it,

Many times its just cheaper to walk away no matter how much you have spent US military is famous for this its called abandon in place the most famous example is ‘The Pyramid’ which was the hub of the Safeguard ABM system.

At the moment Disney has 3 choices, Finish, Mothball or Demo. Sealing the structure allows them to delay the decision for as long as 10-15 years. Or they could decide to finish it in 6 months. Sealing buys the management team time, and they rightly figure no one is going to cancel trips because of a half finished construction project
It's not a sunk cost fallacy. I don't believe any rational person thinks that Disney would never finish the ride and just leave the building standing for the foreseeable future. There aren't "savings" to be had here by what they are doing. They're going to finish the ride and they will need to pay to finish it when they do. The only question is when they go ahead and finish the work. Some think it will be finished next year and others think that is years away. I believe they'll resume construction in the fall as long as the COVID situation doesn't take a turn for the worse.
 

Eric Smith

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Certainly, that's why I indicated it may not be the same crew later on. I do not know the skill sets required for all the phases or where they are at right now. For example, I would expect the welders would not be the same people doing the theming. But it is certainly reasonable for Disney to say "okay,. you can have this much money per month instead of this much".

I agree with you that it's not extending it out at a 1:1. It will almost certainly cost Disney more money over the entirety of the project to slow down Tron compared to just getting it done. However, even though it costs more money, the burn rate is slower so the monthly outlay is lower. Sometimes that's preferable given what else is going on. My point is that this makes more sense to me than just stopping the project altogether for 12 years.
I wonder how far back this decision was made. It's certainly possible that they decided to "mothball" and pause the construction (if that was the decision that was made) months ago when the situation looked pretty dire. The situation has changed and I could see Disney restarting the construction sooner than they had initially planned.
 

hertamaniac

DIS Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Sometimes that's preferable given what else is going on. My point is that this makes more sense to me than just stopping the project altogether for 12 years.

If I was starting down the budget and completion schedule path, I would make the same call that Disney has.

Keep the project going at a snails pace until more funds/resources are allocated. I suspect they are looking at park revenue numbers and have a % to complete schedule (or more aptly called earned value management metrics).
 

TiggerBouncy

DIS Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
If I was starting down the budget and completion schedule path, I would make the same call that Disney has.

Keep the project going at a snails pace until more funds/resources are allocated. I suspect they are looking at park revenue numbers and have a % to complete schedule (or more aptly called earned value management metrics).

To be honest, as a PM, I would too. If management had said to me "we can not afford to do this right now", I would do exactly what they are doing. I would explain we can't just stop at a complete halt since the building is not secure and use that to keep the project going at a slower pace until better tides washed in, knowing that almost certainly would.

Again, this feels to me that all they have done is slow down and extend the schedule. It does not feel like a 5+ year mothball. I keep hearing about the "cost of sealing a site guarantees they are going to mothball" yet no one has told me of any such large un-recoverable one-time outlay.
 

bex7583

DIS Veteran
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
you are buying into the ‘sunk cost fallacy’ google it,

Many times its just cheaper to walk away no matter how much you have spent US military is famous for this its called abandon in place the most famous example is ‘The Pyramid’ which was the hub of the Safeguard ABM system.

At the moment Disney has 3 choices, Finish, Mothball or Demo. Sealing the structure allows them to delay the decision for as long as 10-15 years. Or they could decide to finish it in 6 months. Sealing buys the management team time, and they rightly figure no one is going to cancel trips because of a half finished construction project

We have postponed our trip due to not expecting it to be ready. We are in the UK. A Florida trip is a big expense and Tron was one of the things right at the top of our to do list. 😞
 
Last edited:

helloconnie

DIS Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2009

Yet there has been no official statement from Disney that the construction has been halted. I think people are jumping to conclusions. Until Disney says something, I am going to believe that the work is still on-going.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.











Top