Will the monorail ever be expanded?

[lockedoutlogic]

The expansion of the monorail system is kinda like the "Lost Ark" of Disney rumors....we know it doesn't exist...yet everybody keeps looking for it. Actually more like atlantis or El Dorado

The only way the monorail could've been effectively expanded and made all encompassing is if it was done concurrently with the expansion of the property....the early 80's near breakup and the invasion by Michael the Conquerer pretty much sealed that.

We've done work with Michael Graves and I asked one of the guys about the Swan/Dolphin rumor...the consensus was that it was a discussed/ moderately planned step...if not necessarily the "pass through" that is widely speculated on.

The monorail died right there...in the early 90's...when the downtown area was expanded and packed with rooms and the "Cresent Lake" expansion that had MGM, Swan Dolphin, and Boardwalk/ yacht and beach all planned/ constructed/ opened at nearly the same time.

That was the end of the monorail...they wouldn't do it then - not coincidentally when Disney's money and corporate position was less than juggernaut as it is now - and the door shut after it.

The fact that no spur was extended to Wilderness Lodge...which is about a 3 wood from the existing track...was the nail in the coffin.


Now, that's not to say that another opportunity can't happen...as they could try to push the federal government to go into a "development" project of a new energy efficient type system to be prototyped at WDW for future urban use....not out of the realm of possibility given our precarious energy situation...environmental conditions...and rapidly decreasing employment opportunities in the industrial sector....

But you never know. My hope is for some sort of light rail. It's far cheaper, higher capacity, and could be implemented because they own every square inch they would need to build it already. It doesn't lack the aesthetic lure of the monorail....but it could and i suspect - eventually - will be done.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

A rumor isn't based on facts. Sometimes a rumor starts with a partial truth. Sometimes a rumor is generated based on an untruth, but one that people believe. The black sections at the S/D aren't "temporary" rooms that can be popped out when the monorail is ready to go.

An opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. It's based on facts, but the facts aren't sufficient provide absolute certainty.

Does anyone think the building codes are more lenient in Orlando then Vegas? Does anyone think the cost of concrete and steel is significantly less in Orlando then it was in Vegas 5 years ago?
Pixie dust only works in the theme parks. Does anyone think pilings will cost less to construct in Orlando's ground? The monorails built in Newark and JFK airports were even more expensive.The fact that some posters want the construction costs of a monorail to be significantly cheaper then Vegas doesn't give them a basis to form an opinion. An opinion, without any facts, is either speculation or nonsense.


What's learned by the Vegas example is any new "monorail" at WDW is more likely to be light rail. Significantly cheaper. Disney has the space. Disney could elevate enough sections to provide "magic".

It's possible Disney may build some kind of light rail connecting WDW/Celebration station (if/when the train linking Orlando and Tampa is built) to one or more parts of WDW. This is nothing more then my speculation. It's logical but I don't have any facts to support.

This is an excellent assessment of the truth of construction at WDW...

In fact...Disney probably gets taken a little more for their capital projects - given their location and general supply of cheaper labor - than you would think.

The construction outfits, engineers, and architects that are used in large scale construction at WDW are NOT cheap. I know this from having done work with some of them in the past. And disney's contracts are almost always heavily laden with timetable bonuses and incentives - as you would almost have to in a 365 operation of a worldwide destination for recreation and leisure, further driving up the costs.

Long story short: monorail expansion at WDW would come in above similar type endeavours elsewhere...even in higher priced areas and government projects. The cost could be significantly higher.

so no....no monorail mauve will be pulling into the Pop Century station anytime too.

Which brings me to my final point: IF there ever were to be an expansion...it would be on the Resort "Caste" System that has been in place since the late 80's....i.e. the monorails would only be extended to revenue centers (parks...or any place with cash registers)...and the high end hotels, and perhaps DVC.

I'm not gonna mince words...this is a sensitive take on this i know...but it is the honest truth. What disney provides its hotel patrons is a direct reflection of the price of their room and their facilities...we all know this to be true. It is no coincidence that the 3 monorail hotels are the highest priced...because they are...even with the contemporary "garden wing" throwing the numbers off a bit.

 

[Lewisc]

I'm glad a poster with some knowledge was able to answer those posters who think Disney could build a monorail at a fraction of the cost of the Las Vegas system.

This is the rumor board. CMs are a good source of rumors. Years ago my guide during a backstage tour talked about a transportation plan. It was mainly light rail. He thought it was close to being implemented but it was killed after the decline of business after 9-11. I'm sure through the years Disney commissioned a lot of different plans.

What was interesting is the analysis was the opposite of what we'd expect. It's easier to justify a light rail station at the value resorts then the deluxe. You have a lot of guests within walking distance of one stop. You either need more stations per passenger at the deluxe resorts, guests would be required to walk further or you'd need some kind of shuttle to get passengers from their resort to the station.

Disney can't sell out rooms without discounts. Given a choice do you think guests would prefer free dining or a monorail? Do you think guests would be happy with a $10/night resort/transportation charge that included rail service to the parks? Per room? Per guest? Probably neither.

The EPCOT resorts were built around boat transportation to two different parks.

Which brings me to my final point: IF there ever were to be an expansion...it would be on the Resort "Caste" System that has been in place since the late 80's....i.e. the monorails would only be extended to revenue centers (parks...or any place with cash registers)...and the high end hotels, and perhaps DVC.

I'm not gonna mince words...this is a sensitive take on this i know...but it is the honest truth. What disney provides its hotel patrons is a direct reflection of the price of their room and their facilities...we all know this to be true. It is no coincidence that the 3 monorail hotels are the highest priced...because they are...even with the contemporary "garden wing" throwing the numbers off a bit.

 

[GrumpyFan]

The only way the monorail could've been effectively expanded and made all encompassing is if it was done concurrently with the expansion of the property....the early 80's near breakup and the invasion by Michael the Conquerer pretty much sealed that.

It just shows how extremely short-sighted "Michael the Conqueror" was in building all the hotels on-property, without excpanding the transit options to include monorail or some other form of transportation that would've been cleaner, possibly more efficient and friendlier to the environment than busses.

That was the end of the monorail...they wouldn't do it then - not coincidentally when Disney's money and corporate position was less than juggernaut as it is now - and the door shut after it.

Indeed. That would have made the most sense on many levels.

The fact that no spur was extended to Wilderness Lodge...which is about a 3 wood from the existing track...was the nail in the coffin.

I must disagree here though. I don't know that the monorail going to Wilderness would work that well. I think doing so would really wreck the elaborate theming that goes a long way to make you feel like you're at a true resort in the paciffic north west. Sure, having the monorail here would be convenient, but not at the expense of ruining the theme.

Now, that's not to say that another opportunity can't happen...as they could try to push the federal government to go into a "development" project of a new energy efficient type system to be prototyped at WDW for future urban use....not out of the realm of possibility given our precarious energy situation...environmental conditions...and rapidly decreasing employment opportunities in the industrial sector....

But you never know. My hope is for some sort of light rail. It's far cheaper, higher capacity, and could be implemented because they own every square inch they would need to build it already. It doesn't lack the aesthetic lure of the monorail....but it could and i suspect - eventually - will be done.

Pushing the federal government, really? I wouldn't want to see that. If the federal government is involved then there's also a lot of heavy requirements that go along with it, that I really don't want to see at WDW.

If there's any possible opportunity for something to happen, I think it will be in conjunction with the Florida High Speed Rail project. The way I see it is they almost have to build something to connect to the new station that will be on-property. Well, they don't have to, but they really should. I mean, do they really want to transfer guests from the high speed rail to a bus? Sure, it will work, but it's really kind of an ugly situation.

Light rail could work, but there's numerous other options as well. I like PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) personally, and there are literally dozens of designs out there. Another option would be a smaller format monorail system. Hitachi Monorail, which is who built the Tokyo Disney line, has several different sized monorails they've built. Their small line of monorails, require smaller, less expensive beams, that can make tighter turns and require less space. The trains are listed at carrying up to 79 passengers per car, usually in just 2 cars but up to 4, and they claim the cost of their system is 50% less than a tradiontal large-type monorail. Probably not the best solution, but like I said, there are numerous designs out there that should be looked at.

 

[skiingfast]

An opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. It's based on facts, but the facts aren't sufficient provide absolute certainty.

Does anyone think the building codes are more lenient in Orlando then Vegas? Does anyone think the cost of concrete and steel is significantly less in Orlando then it was in Vegas 5 years ago?
Pixie dust only works in the theme parks. Does anyone think pilings will cost less to construct in Orlando's ground? The monorails built in Newark and JFK airports were even more expensive.The fact that some posters want the construction costs of a monorail to be significantly cheaper then Vegas doesn't give them a basis to form an opinion. An opinion, without any facts, is either speculation or nonsense.


What's learned by the Vegas example is any new "monorail" at WDW is more likely to be light rail. Significantly cheaper. Disney has the space. Disney could elevate enough sections to provide "magic".

QUOTE]

It sound like what you are saying is that without facts nothing is possible. Kind of like when people thought the world was round but had nothing to back it up.

Also a light rail at WDW may not be significantly cheaper. Based on this fact, it is more expensive to build track when tunnels or bridges need to be used. With all the existing infrastructure in place throughout WDW a light rial would need to effectiently and safely cross many roads and have close access to the resort lobbys. A monorail by it's nature does not have similar problems.

"It's kind of fun to do the impossible" -Walt Disney

 

[Dznefreek]

Keep in mind...giving costs as "$ per mile" and using it as a comparison isn't really valid.

exactly . . . . .

 

[DC7800]

Light rail cost between 15-100 million per mile.

Source please? There's no way one mile of light-rail track costs even $15 million, unless you are including other costs (ROW acquisition, building in developed areas, relocation of utilities, etc.) or the price of something besides just the track (cab signals, catenary system, etc.). I don't doubt that you've heard or read that somewhere, but there's something wrong with those numbers.

We're not talking about an elevated railway or a subway - those would indeed cost truly incredible sums of money - or even lines with long bridges or highway underpasses. We are just talking about one mile of standard guage, at-grade, wood or cement tie ballasted railroad. It's not cheap, and there are other costs involved in any such project, but one mile of track isn't that expensive.

CMs are a good source of rumors

CM's, no offense intended, are notoriously poor sources of rumors. They often know no more than we do here on the boards, since they aren't necessairily privvy to executive decisions any more than we are. Now let me state with certainty that doesn't apply to everyone - there are some very knowledgable CM's - including many who post right here on the DIS. CM's also may hear or learn of things within their area. But how many bus drivers have spread the "black spots on the Swan & Dolphin removal for the monorail" line (and not a shred of truth to it, of course).

It's easier to justify a light rail station at the value resorts then the deluxe.

For an efficient transportation system, this is certainly correct. You have more passengers at the value resort complexes.

Given a choice do you think guests would prefer free dining or a monorail?

Monorail. I'd take about anything over free dining, actually. It needs to go away. Badly.

 

[Lewisc]

I found the range of costs from a google search. I'm not going to take the time to find, and post it. The variable is what percentage of the track has to be elevated (or tunneled) to avoid grade crossings. My point is light rail would be a fraction of the cost of a monorail. I don't know how much of the cost is going to relocate utilities, grade crossings etc. Those are certainly part of the cost of construction. I can't see Disney building light rail without eliminating almost all grade crossings. They may need to elevate the track near some of the resorts.

I probably should of used one of those smilie things. CMs are a good source of rumors in that most of us have had at least one bus driver willing to share his opinions. By "good source" I meant they are a source for a large quantity of rumors. I certainly didn't mean they are a source of rumors that accurately predict future Disney plans. That was my point. Speculation by posters on DIS are likely to be more accurate then many of the CM rumors.

JMO but Disney wanted to change their restaurants to make them more popular. Fill them. Restaurants like Olive Garden and Outback are more popular with famlies then restaurants like Il Mulino of NY and Shula's. The dining plan was a result of the Disney's desire to make the restaurants more popular, not the cause.

Source please? There's no way one mile of light-rail track costs even $15 million, unless you are including other costs (ROW acquisition, building in developed areas, relocation of utilities, etc.) or the price of something besides just the track (cab signals, catenary system, etc.). I don't doubt that you've heard or read that somewhere, but there's something wrong with those numbers.

We're not talking about an elevated railway or a subway - those would indeed cost truly incredible sums of money - or even lines with long bridges or highway underpasses. We are just talking about one mile of standard guage, at-grade, wood or cement tie ballasted railroad. It's not cheap, and there are other costs involved in any such project, but one mile of track isn't that expensive.



CM's, no offense intended, are notoriously poor sources of rumors. They often know no more than we do here on the boards, since they aren't necessairily privvy to executive decisions any more than we are. Now let me state with certainty that doesn't apply to everyone - there are some very knowledgable CM's - including many who post right here on the DIS. CM's also may hear or learn of things within their area. But how many bus drivers have spread the "black spots on the Swan & Dolphin removal for the monorail" line (and not a shred of truth to it, of course).

For an efficient transportation system, this is certainly correct. You have more passengers at the value resort complexes.



Monorail. I'd take about anything over free dining, actually. It needs to go away. Badly.

 

[skiingfast]

Has anyone ever been there during a time where the buses wear really busy? Did it appear they needed to add to the transportation system?

 

[Lewisc]

Has anyone ever been there during a time where the buses wear really busy? Did it appear they needed to add to the transportation system?

I took a non-Disney bus at park closing. I don't remember the name of the company. The driver said Disney has contracts with local bus companies to supply buses (and drivers) when needed. My memory is they were also using DCL buses. Maybe the contract is just with Mears.

The point is it's possible to add extra buses but the ability to add extra trains is very limited. The lines for the monorail at park closing are sometimes longer then the lines for the buses.

 

[skiingfast]

I took a non-Disney bus at park closing. I don't remember the name of the company. The driver said Disney has contracts with local bus companies to supply buses (and drivers) when needed. My memory is they were also using DCL buses. Maybe the contract is just with Mears.

The point is it's possible to add extra buses but the ability to add extra trains is very limited. The lines for the monorail at park closing are sometimes longer then the lines for the buses.

So I see they do need extra transit. And if it was cheaper to rent all of it they wouldn't have there own at all.

Despite the lines you've seen the monorails have a higher capacity than the buses. The current trainset holds 300 passnegers, you may pack in 70 on the older buses the newer low floor buses about 60. Which line moves the fastest?

 

[doconeill]

Despite the lines you've seen the monorails have a higher capacity than the buses. The current trainset holds 300 passnegers, you may pack in 70 on the older buses the newer low floor buses about 60. Which line moves the fastest?

Capacity does not equal throughput... It depends on how many buses, which will define the frequency, the time in transit which defines the average speed, etc. etc.

As we say in the IT industry, "You may have a fat pipe, but never underestimate the throughput of a station wagon full of tapes..."

 

[Lewisc]

Despite the lines you've seen the monorails have a higher capacity than the buses. The current trainset holds 300 passnegers, you may pack in 70 on the older buses the newer low floor buses about 60. Which line moves the fastest?

How many monorail trains can the system handle per hour? How many monorail trains per hour can Disney run with their current fleet? Can Disney rent extra trains for park closing? Obviously not.

How many buses per hour can the bus stops handle? Remember Disney can change the signs and have more then one stop for a resort.

The MK can load 2 monorails at the same time 300 X 2 = 600
The MK can load ??? buses at the same time 60 X ? = a lot more then 600

How long does it take to ge the next train to the station, loaded and dispatched?
How long does it take for a bus to pull in, load and depart?

 

[skiingfast]

How many monorail trains can the system handle per hour? How many monorail trains per hour can Disney run with their current fleet? Can Disney rent extra trains for park closing? Obviously not.

How many buses per hour can the bus stops handle? Remember Disney can change the signs and have more then one stop for a resort.

The MK can load 2 monorails at the same time 300 X 2 = 600
The MK can load ??? buses at the same time 60 X ? = a lot more then 600

How long does it take to ge the next train to the station, loaded and dispatched?
How long does it take for a bus to pull in, load and depart?

Why don't you refine your model and then tell everyone the answers?

When shipping in bulk you use trains not trucks.

 

[doconeill]

When shipping in bulk you use trains not trucks.

When shipping in bulk, you aren't trying to get it there fast. But when it gets there, you get a lot of it at once (the "station wagon full of tapes" analogy I made earlier).

So, using that analogy, say I had a monorail or other bulk mover, that took an hour to get from AKL to MK. I can move 1000 guests an hour. But each and every guest has to wait an hour, and they arrive all at once creating congestion at the gates, etc.

Say I had 5 buses with a capacity of 100 guests, but they could get to MK in 30 minutes. That's 500 guests in 30 minutes, so its the same 1000 guests in 60 minutes. But half of them actually get there sooner, and none of them spend more than 30 minutes in any one spot (30 minutes here and 30 minutes somewhere else feels a lot different than 60 minutes in one place).

Of course, I'm making these numbers up. But it all depends on how you want to move people - speed, rate, comfort, and flexibility.

Another problem is in failures. If a trainset fails on a monorail, the system is seriously crippled if not altogether down until the problem is addressed, and you could have a trainset or more full of passengers stranded on the beam during that time. If the trainset is shot you need to take it out of service and you've lost a fair percentage of your capacity. Even if it is not a trainset problem but a beam problem, your system is severely crippled. And you have to have buses in reserve to deal with it. Overall it may be more reliable, but when it fails it REALLY fails.

If a bus fails, you've got far less guests stranded, they can easily be transferred to a working bus quickly, and you can easily reroute around road problems. You lose a very small percentage of your capacity.

It's the same reason that in the U.S. there isn't much expansion to rail systems when buses can be used.

 

[Lewisc]

Despite the lines you've seen the monorails have a higher capacity than the buses. The current trainset holds 300 passnegers, you may pack in 70 on the older buses the newer low floor buses about 60. Which line moves the fastest?

Why don't you refine your model and then tell everyone the answers?

I didn't see the need to embarass you by documenting how wrong your point was. I provided enough information to show why you're incorrect. You can do the math if you want to see how wrong you are.

 

[skiingfast]

I didn't see the need to embarass you by documenting how wrong your point was. I provided enough information to show why you're incorrect. You can do the math if you want to see how wrong you are.

How wrong was it?

 

[skiingfast]

When shipping in bulk, you aren't trying to get it there fast. But when it gets there, you get a lot of it at once (the "station wagon full of tapes" analogy I made earlier).

So, using that analogy, say I had a monorail or other bulk mover, that took an hour to get from AKL to MK. I can move 1000 guests an hour. But each and every guest has to wait an hour, and they arrive all at once creating congestion at the gates, etc.

Say I had 5 buses with a capacity of 100 guests, but they could get to MK in 30 minutes. That's 500 guests in 30 minutes, so its the same 1000 guests in 60 minutes. But half of them actually get there sooner, and none of them spend more than 30 minutes in any one spot (30 minutes here and 30 minutes somewhere else feels a lot different than 60 minutes in one place).

Of course, I'm making these numbers up. But it all depends on how you want to move people - speed, rate, comfort, and flexibility.

Here a real world application of bulk transport that compares two different modes. About 10 years ago I met a man who was in charge of maintaining a rail sytem on an ore dock on Lake Michigan. The iron ore was being moved from mines in Northen Michigan to Steel mills in northern Indiana. I asked why if trains are faster and it's already loaded on them why put them on a ship?

He said the trains move 15 mph when loaded and the ship goes about 6 so it is true that the trains can go faster. But the ship can carry 4 train loads.

Four times as much ore in a little less than 3 times the amount of time.

 

[doconeill]

Four times as much ore in a little less than 3 times the amount of time.

Right. But ore doesn't complain about how long it took.

 

[skiingfast]

Another problem is in failures. If a trainset fails on a monorail, the system is seriously crippled if not altogether down until the problem is addressed, and you could have a trainset or more full of passengers stranded on the beam during that time. If the trainset is shot you need to take it out of service and you've lost a fair percentage of your capacity. Even if it is not a trainset problem but a beam problem, your system is severely crippled. And you have to have buses in reserve to deal with it. Overall it may be more reliable, but when it fails it REALLY fails.

If a bus fails, you've got far less guests stranded, they can easily be transferred to a working bus quickly, and you can easily reroute around road problems. You lose a very small percentage of your capacity.

It's the same reason that in the U.S. there isn't much expansion to rail systems when buses can be used.

I agree if a train is idle on the tracks it does hold up the whole line. It isn't a terrible problem though. I imagine that there is a maximum time, by FL state law, that guests can be stranded. They do have a vehicle to pull the monorails to the maintnance shop. Also roads can be closed because of vehicle or roadway problems. It seems like disney had to close the bus sytem down earlier this year.