Will the monorail ever be expanded?

[doconeill]

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.

Road closures do not stop the buses from running...they just need to take a different route because there are multiple paths.

The bus system closed down temporarily for inspections due to a bomb scare, which would shut down any system.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

My goodness... Obviously Disney has crunched the numbers on this issue and decided, at least for now, that it is not cost effective to build more monorail lines.
If it were to Disney's advantage, you can bet the project would be in the works.

Of course we all want more monorail lines, but that doesn't make it a good business decision.
Personally , I would rather see the clubs on PI re-opened.

MG

 

[skiingfast]

We don't know if disney is planning or crunching the numbers. That's why it was introduced to the rumor and news board.

I also have the feeling that some people don't like the monorail. I suspicious that they belong to the union that the bus operators do.

It's funny you would like PI to reopen the clubs. I think it had the biggest effect on the CM's that were there during the closings. Perhaps you were one?

 

[Maistre Gracey]

We don't know if disney is planning or crunching the numbers. That's why it was introduced to the rumor and news board.

I also have the feeling that some people don't like the monorail. I suspicious that they belong to the union that the bus operators do.

It's funny you would like PI to reopen the clubs. I think it had the biggest effect on the CM's that were there during the closings. Perhaps you were one?

No, I have never been a CM.

Of course Disney has crunched the numbers over the years. That's what they do best. I mean... What do you think?? Do you think they just forgot about adding more monorail??

MG

 

[Lewisc]

I've linked an old post from Chip N Dale Express. He does a good job describing reasons why a monorail expansion won't be an improvement.

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=3137192&postcount=45

We got on a bus and get off that bus when we reach our destination. Assume Disney builds a monorail/light rail. One stop at CBR. That suggests a resort shuttle to get to the monorail. Assume the rail goes as far as some central transfer point (TTC?) that means a connecting train. A guest has to go on 3 different forms of transportation instead of one. Confusing to some guests. Probably negates any potential time savings.

Posters who refute the nonsense and gibberish posted by a couple of people aren't shills for Disney or CMs.

Most of the cost issues with a monorail would be solved with a light rail solution. Only elevate sections of the track.

That doesn't address other issues. Disney uses buses because buses work. They're flexible. The impact of a train being removed from service would be greater then a train removed from service.

 

[Oglet]

You can have all the flexibility in the world, its how its implemented that matters. Take this for example.

Grad night last night. MK closed at 7 for guests, of course all the resort dining locations are open well past that. At 9pm someone who is staying at a Disney resort such as POP, All Star or any other resort not serviced by the monorail has 2 main disney options with slight variations of each available.

1 They can wait for a bus at the resort they are eating at and catch a bus to DTD and then catch another bus to their hotel or,

2. You can catch the monorail to TTC, switch to the Epcot Monorail, take it to EPCOT, get off and walk to a bus and catch it to your resort.

Neither is a really good option for a guest however as much of a supporter of the monorail as I am Monorail-Monorail-Bus is far more confusing than a Bus - Bus option.

When MK closes at 7pm for a special event many are already annoyed, throw in the fact they have easily just spent a couple hundred dollars dining and an option that requires them to ride 2 monorails and wait for a bus at the end of it to get to their hotel makes for an extremely unhappy guest experience.

Is it any wonder they are always discounting rooms and offering free dining?

 

[skiingfast]

Road closures do not stop the buses from running...they just need to take a different route because there are multiple paths.

The bus system closed down temporarily for inspections due to a bomb scare, which would shut down any system.

I'm am sure your can think of a case where a road has been closed and traffic had majors problems because of it.

The case is the same for rail lines. Orlando does not have one road into it, it doesn't have one track into it either. There is an option.

Even if a monorail is stuck on the way to the MK. There is a paralell track that can still be used.

Being a train doesn't mean if one stops they all do.

 

[skiingfast]

No, I have never been a CM.

Of course Disney has crunched the numbers over the years. That's what they do best. I mean... What do you think?? Do you think they just forgot about adding more monorail??

MG

All business make decisions for spending capital. Personaly I think it is quite argueable that Disney isn't great at it.

Was it worth closing down PI? Not that we would really know, but being a fan do you think it was loosing money and better to now opporate?

I'm sure if they have transit problems or plans to expand then they take another look at the cost/benefit. Just not something they would discuss at every meeting.

 

[doconeill]

I'm am sure your can think of a case where a road has been closed and traffic had majors problems because of it.

If you've only got one major road and a lot of smaller ones, yes.

The roads at WDW are fairly equal. The only problem is if you've got a unique feeder road (say, something happens at the entrance roadway to a resort).

The case is the same for rail lines. Orlando does not have one road into it, it doesn't have one track into it either. There is an option.

Not all rail lines are equal, and most lines have only two tracks. The big advantage of regular rail is that switching between tracks is relatively easy and comparatively cheap - however, all sorts of blocking and signaling needs to take place - it may require manual protection and blocking, which severely limits throughout. On an occasional commuter or inter-city route its not a big deal. On a metropolitan Rapid Transit system, it causes major delays.

Switching on monorail is a lot more expensive, which is why there aren't inter-beam switches periodically. Aside from the switching into the individual bays of the maintenance facility, I can think of 4 - two that are used to shunt from the MK to Epcot loops, once from the Maintenance to the Express beam, and one from the Express to the Resort beam.

Even if a monorail is stuck on the way to the MK. There is a paralell track that can still be used.

Being a train doesn't mean if one stops they all do.

In the case of the MK loops yes - there is a redundant path. And the Express loop I believe CAN be used for resort stops in an emergency. But your throughput is cut completely in half.

In the case of the Epcot loop, however, there is not a redundant beam and therefore you are either completely shut down or need to run a "shuttle" back and forth on the same beam. Given that the Epcot loop runs with 3 trainsets, your throughput is at best 1/3.

 

[skiingfast]

I've linked an old post from Chip N Dale Express. He does a good job describing reasons why a monorail expansion won't be an improvement.

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=3137192&postcount=45

We got on a bus and get off that bus when we reach our destination. Assume Disney builds a monorail/light rail. One stop at CBR. That suggests a resort shuttle to get to the monorail. Assume the rail goes as far as some central transfer point (TTC?) that means a connecting train. A guest has to go on 3 different forms of transportation instead of one. Confusing to some guests. Probably negates any potential time savings.

Posters who refute the nonsense and gibberish posted by a couple of people aren't shills for Disney or CMs.

Most of the cost issues with a monorail would be solved with a light rail solution. Only elevate sections of the track.

That doesn't address other issues. Disney uses buses because buses work. They're flexible. The impact of a train being removed from service would be greater then a train removed from service.

I read the post by chip n dale, he admits that he has experience with the Disney transport system, but is not an expert in the field.

Also some of the claims he made have been refuted on these boards time and time again regarding transit times.

Unlike Chip N Dale I find it likely the monorail could be expanded. He merely uses an example which is already a difficulty for the buses and uses it to say why a monorail won't work. I would not say a monorial or light rail would be the most effecient use of such a system.

I agree that transfers are not desired and fast service is the guest's number one priority. This can be built into a rail system just as well as a bus system. I have in many areas used or seen busses and trains that pick up in the same station but have different routes.

I also want to point out that while it is well documented that city rail systems that flourised one hundred years ago where forced out of business by the underhanded works of oil and auto companies, in the last 30 years many cities have reinstalled rail transit systems.

 

[DC7800]

In the case of the Epcot loop, however, there is not a redundant beam and therefore you are either completely shut down or need to run a "shuttle" back and forth on the same beam. Given that the Epcot loop runs with 3 trainsets, your throughput is at best 1/3.

If there are three trains on the Epcot beam, and one of them is disabled, you can run in 'shuttle' mode with both of the remaining trains, not just one.

In the case of the MK loops yes - there is a redundant path. And the Express loop I believe CAN be used for resort stops in an emergency. But your throughput is cut completely in half.

The Grand Floridian and Polynesian access to the Express beam is on the wrong side of the station platform (Contemporary doesn't matter, in fact I've boarded the express beam from here). I believe there are stairs leading down from these otherwsie unused platforms, but is there any provision for bridge plates or something similar to permit direct access from a monorail on the 'wrong' beam? Anyone know?

The big advantage of regular rail is that switching between tracks is relatively easy and comparatively cheap - however, all sorts of blocking and signaling needs to take place - it may require manual protection and blocking, which severely limits throughout. On an occasional commuter or inter-city route its not a big deal.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but switching from one track to another is routine (tens of thousands of times a day...) and no "sorts of blocking and signaling" is required. Nor does it (ordinarily) cause delay. Even if its a hand thrown switch somewhere (most are controlled by a dispatcher, often hundreds of miles distant) its still a simple matter of throwing the switch, pulling the train through, and then realigning the turnout.

I've linked an old post from Chip N Dale Express. He does a good job describing reasons why a monorail expansion won't be an improvement.

He knowledgeable about the Disney bus system, and probably a champion of bus transportation in general. Which is fine. Buses will always be an important part of the WDW transportation picture, and I like the efficiency of bus transportation also. That said, Chip N Dale Express makes assumptions about how an expanded monorail would work at WDW which make it appear that buses are the better solution and that make monrail look bad in comparison. A fixed-guideway is not a problem - Its the railways greatest asset!

Finally, if the monorail ever were to be expanded (again, its not going to happen folks!) - why, why, why would you design it so guests have to transfer to reach their destination!. I don't know why people keep making that assumption; A monorail can offer a 'one-seat ride' from resort to theme park just as readily as a bus. Just because it isn't done from Epcot to the Magic Kingdom is no basis to declare that monorails require transfers. Indeed, regarding this example, remember that buses didn't used to go directly to the MK either - the gateway to the park was the TTC, and everyone took the ferryboat or another monorail over.

 

[Oglet]

The platforms on the other side of the Poly and GF can be used in emergency cases and have direct access to stairs. Only thing with the Poly is the platform was never raised up to fit the new trains and has quite a drop from door to platform.

 

[doconeill]

I did have a longer response, but managed to close the tab accidentally

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but switching from one track to another is routine (tens of thousands of times a day...) and no "sorts of blocking and signaling" is required. Nor does it (ordinarily) cause delay. Even if its a hand thrown switch somewhere (most are controlled by a dispatcher, often hundreds of miles distant) its still a simple matter of throwing the switch, pulling the train through, and then realigning the turnout.

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other (you are obviously a railfan)...blocking and signaling is always required as a means of protection. Even with remote thrown switches, something needs to be done to protect the block such that multiple trains, especially heading in opposite directions, from entering the same block when it is single track. Longer distance systems tend not to have switches as frequently, so the blocks are longer, and you have a bottleneck in your system, but also as I said those systems tend to have a lower frequency so its not as big a deal.

But I also said that rail systems DO have switching, and they can switch much cheaper than a monorail beam switch, so they are less prone but not immune to such issues.

I would LOVE for them to expand the monorail. But Disney faces the same decisions about doing that that major cities faces when looking to expand their metro services - cost (at least initially) vs. flexibility. That's why cities like Boston end up with abominations like the Silver Line, and (at least one reason) street-running rail is an endangered species...

 

[skiingfast]

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 was thinking about this. While the WL is close to the line and you can see one from the other if you work out it would probably take a third of a mile of track to loop it out to the WL.

But I think the track area in that area is already set to run through another unbuilt resort.

I saw a video with maybe ?Dave Smith? and he was talking about plans for the resort in 1970 that they never built. You see, he said that they needed postcards, posters and other materials ready for the opening of WDW.

He showed a couple of these post cards from 1970 and it shows a resort on the Seven Seas Lagoon about half way between the TTC and Contemporary. In this picture is also the Contemporary which was being built at the time. The postcard wasn't an actual picture just a drawing of what would be.

This resort would be on the current line where a WL line would need to depart from the current path. Before you decide that this is nonsense let me tell you about the other postcard he showed. It was of the other two monorail resorts. The Poly and GF. Of course the GF didn't open until 1988.

 

[Lewisc]

It's not nonsense. There are several sites that still have the artist rendering of a resort between the TTC and the Contemporary. Some have it being Venetian themed.

One rumor said the ground is soft. Disney had issues with the monorail pylons in that area. Disney decided it wouldn't be cost effective to build at that location.

Other rumors said it was money. That's why it wasn't built shortly after WDW opened. When Disney finally decided to add more hotel rooms they first added moderate resorts. Disney then added the deluxe hotels between EPCOT and DHS.

 

[chartle]

Here is a link to the Wikipedia article about the venetian themed resort that was never built.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney's_Venetian_Resort

also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_World#Never-built_Disney_resorts

They also blame the 73 oil embargo for cancelling the project.

 

[doconeill]

Definitely not nonsense...Disney's Venetian Resort was in the original plans and would have been just north of the TTC, in that big flat empty area, along with the Asian Resort (where the GF is now) and the Persian Resort (to the east of MK, where there is now just a dirt maintenance area).

I don't remember the soft ground being among the reasons the Venetian wasn't originally built - more the cutbacks due to the oil embargo, etc. as these resorts weren't scheduled to open on day 1, so they never got started, although the Venetian itself may have been planned for earlier and shelved for other reasons, including the land stability.

Later on, after the success of the GF, Disney resurrected the idea of a resort at the same location, this time calling it the Mediterranean Resort. However, when they did piling tests, the ground was too swampy and they'd have to go REAL deep to give it a solid foundation, so again the plans were scrapped.

Interestingly, that land was cleared again a couple of weeks or so ago, but the official reason was for "site lines". Hmmm...

 

[Lewisc]

Interestingly, that land was cleared again a couple of weeks or so ago, but the official reason was for "site lines". Hmmm...

This is the rumor board. I'll let you speculate.
1) Monorail related. Maybe an evacuation point.
2) Parking for the Contemporary so they can build a second DVC tower. It's close enough for valet.
3) A DVC monorail resort. DVC fans will pay whatever premium is needed to build on soft ground.
4) None of the above. Land is being cleared for CM parking. Staging area for some kind of construction. Place to park buses.

 

[doconeill]

This is the rumor board. I'll let you speculate.
1) Monorail related. Maybe an evacuation point.
2) Parking for the Contemporary so they can build a second DVC tower. It's close enough for valet.
3) A DVC monorail resort. DVC fans will pay whatever premium is needed to build on soft ground.
4) None of the above. Land is being cleared for CM parking. Staging area for some kind of construction. Place to park buses.

Actually, I think it is 5) - it is what they said, they just cleared it to improve the view. They didn't do much to the ground, just cleared brush, etc.

1) More land was cleared than just around the beam. It also isn't far to either TTC or Contemporary.
2) Only if they build bridge to get to it, or they have to deal with getting back and forth via World Drive. They could park more cars there than all of what the CR can now hold...solves the problem about valet parking and then going to the park
3) The alternate rumor to tacking DVC on to either Poly of GF is a separate resort, and this would be the likely location. Whether the location is buildable at all is unknown.
4) Better for that to be backstage instead of prime real estate.

 

[Lewisc]

I misunderstood you post. I thought you meant they were clearing so they could check sight lines, in advance of doing something. (Balloon might be next step).

Clearing to improve sight lines is more likely.