Rumor MK Space Mountain REVISED in 2026? (One track? side-by-side seating?)

[peter11435]

It is the scenario that exists all the time. Track layouts are not designed as perfect multiples of the minimum spacing.

They are for omnimovers.

In other systems it doesn’t matter as much because vehicle spacing is not a constant and loads, unloads, holds and jogs can be designed to mitigate any discrepancies.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

I don't really understand the point of replacing the existing two tracks with one, custom designed track.

You'd have to spend the time and money designing something from scratch, while working within the confines of an existing building. Unless the plan is to tear the whole thing down like Tokyo? I don't see Disney bothering with that.

And what kind of coaster would it even be? One big downward spiral like Disneyland? Another version of Cosmic Rewind?

I also don't see why the bobsled style seating is such an issue either when next door there's a coaster that's more complicated to load, arguably more uncomfortable to sit in and requires everyone to empty their pockets first.

I'm all for replacing the track and making modifications to the ride vehicles to allow for things like onboard audio, but the track layout and type of coaster itself has never been the problem for me. I like it a lot better than Disneyland's.

See, after riding both now within the span of a year, I just don’t think MK’s space holds a candle to Disneyland’s. The vehicles are far more comfortable in Anaheim, the track while yes being a big spiral is way more fun and feels faster because of it’s shape and tightness. Even it’s dips even feel more exciting. The whole experience over is just far more pleasant and thrilling.

I don’t think MK’s Space is quite to the level of uncomfortable as something like Matterhorn but it is most definitely an uncomfortable ride through the cosmos, and this is coming from someone who generally likes rough rides. If a single track means the comfortability and fun factor of Disneyland’s then bring it on.

Whatever they do, we just gotta get rid of the bobsleds and go for the train style of DL at the very least. Those bobsleds are a nightmare for people who’re tall or who have hip and knee issues.

 

[Jrb1979]

See, after riding both now within the span of a year, I just don’t think MK’s space holds a candle to Disneyland’s. The vehicles are far more comfortable in Anaheim, the track while yes being a big spiral is way more fun and feels faster because of it’s shape and tightness. Even it’s dips even feel more exciting. The whole experience over is just far more pleasant and thrilling.

I don’t think MK’s Space is quite to the level of uncomfortable as something like Matterhorn but it is most definitely an uncomfortable ride through the cosmos, and this is coming from someone who generally likes rough rides. If a single track means the comfortability and fun factor of Disneyland’s then bring it on.

Whatever they do, we just gotta get rid of the bobsleds and go for the train style of DL at the very least. Those bobsleds are a nightmare for people who’re tall or who have hip and knee issues.

Get RMC to build a single rail coaster for space mountain. It keeps the bobsled type trains but much more comfortable.

It's time for Disney to move on from Vekoma. There is a lot of other coaster manufacturers to work with. Many who make really good coasters. Would love Intamin, if they don't go with RMC to build Space Mountain

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

Get RMC to build a single rail coaster for space mountain. It keeps the bobsled type trains but much more comfortable.

I know this is a bit of yours bit real talk, I love the RMC raptors but I do indeed struggle a bit with their ride vehicles and it’s for the same reason I struggle with the current bobsleds Disney uses: I was in a really bad car accident in 2020 and really hurt my hip and the way those trains are set up just makes it very uncomfortable for me to sit in. The RMC trains are way better yes but I’m afraid there’s no getting around how the general tightness of the single seat coaster car interacts with my bad hip and long legs lol I suffer through it for the fun but would love to not have to

 

[flynnibus]

Full width of what? There’s only a minimum width requirement if you provide a wheelchair space.

Full width as in full sized two wide seat configuration - which the vast majority of coasters are 2 abreast seating.

 

[flynnibus]

I disagree with that quote. It might decrease hourly capacity, it might not. There is not enough information given in the statement to make a factual declaration. Ride length itself does not dictate lowered capacity.

In practice you would.. even simply due to the principal of diversity and blast radius.

By increasing the ride vehicle capacity, you inherently increase how of your throughput will be impacted by a delay/issue. If 3 vehicles holding 12 people each are impacted... your throughput is impaired by 36 people. If 3 vehicles holding 6 people each are impacted, your throughput is only impacted by 18 people. The diversified system reduces the blast radius of an issue.

If your ride stops and you only have one track.. your throughput goes to 0. If you have two tracks, and can keep one running, your throughput is no longer zero.

Going to one system you lose diversity - increasing your exposure when something happens.

Doubling vehicle capacity and getting equivalent results is only theoretical capacity - coasters don't tend to achieve that and when you reduce diversity and concentrate all your results in one system... you swing bigger, and miss bigger when you do miss.

 

[flynnibus]

Now do the same with ride A at 595’ and ride B at 600’. Which is longer track length? Which has more throughout?

Your very question illustrates there is an evaluation that must be made - why is that? Because there is consequence to the number. That's what dependency means.

 

[peter11435]

Your very question illustrates there is an evaluation that must be made - why is that? Because there is consequence to the number. That's what dependency means.

There is only a consequence to the number if you do nothing to compensate. If you add an extra 200 feet of track to Winnie the Pooh but keep the same number of vehicles as it has today then it will obviously increase vehicle spacing and dispatch interval resulting in less capacity. But you can add vehicles to maintain the same vehicle spacing and dispatch interval you have today in order to reach the same capacity. This is because ride length is not the limiting or contributing factor when it comes to throughput/capacity. There are other factors that define minimum dispatch interval. Which has been the point all along. This is why some attractions are designed with multiple load stations (Pirates, Tron, BTM), multiple ride system elements (Rise), and duplicate show scenes (Ratatouille). These allow them to maintain lower dispatch intervals while mitigating the elements that actually determine and restrict dispatch interval.

The flaw in your argument is that track length is only relevant to cycle time. Yes, cycle time can be used to calculate capacity. But cycle time itself can not be known or calculated unless you know the minimum dispatch interval. And that minimum dispatch interval is determined by factors independent of track length. Those factors are what limit capacity, not the length of the track.

 

[Nubs70]

Side by side seating so fat people can ride.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, cycle time can be used to calculate capacity. But cycle time itself can not be known or calculated unless you know the minimum dispatch interval.

I provided the formula that is used in programming and design. It does not use dispatch interval.

 

[peter11435]

I provided the formula that is used in programming and design. It does not use dispatch interval.

You provided A formula is that is used. Your formula includes cycle time. Cycle time can not be determined without knowing the minimum dispatch interval. The minimum cycle time includes minimum dispatch interval even if you don’t realize it. Simply saying load time is not sufficient.

 

[Coaster Lover]

Get RMC to build a single rail coaster for space mountain.

Raptor trains have a 48" height requirement and part of that is due to the fact that your legs need to be long enough to straddle the "box" in the middle of the seat. Either RMC would need to radically redesign the train, or Disney would need to be okay with a 48" height requirement (which I doubt they would be given Space is currently a 44" height requirement). Not to mention that RMCs don't have the greatest track record with reliability. Vekoma is a MUCH safer bet...

 

[Jrb1979]

Raptor trains have a 48" height requirement and part of that is due to the fact that your legs need to be long enough to straddle the "box" in the middle of the seat. Either RMC would need to radically redesign the train, or Disney would need to be okay with a 48" height requirement (which I doubt they would be given Space is currently a 44" height requirement). Not to mention that RMCs don't have the greatest track record with reliability. Vekoma is a MUCH safer bet...

Then go with Intamin. While new Vekoma is good, i feel Disney doesn't get the best out of them due to the family friendly nature of their coasters.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You provided A formula is that is used. Your formula includes cycle time. Cycle time can not be determined without knowing the minimum dispatch interval. The minimum cycle time includes minimum dispatch interval even if you don’t realize it. Simply saying load time is not sufficient.

Cycle time is designed. It is not determined, it is decided.

As cycle time increases the instantaneous capacity must increase to meet capacity. That can be done in different ways. You can increase seats per vehicle or number of vehicles. Each of those decisions have different impacts on dispatch interval. You can send out fewer people quickly or more people slowly and get the same result. It is just dumb to decide that first and then force the experience to it instead of starting with the experience first and determining how it is to be achieved.

 

[peter11435]

Cycle time is designed. It is not determined, it is decided.

As cycle time increases the instantaneous capacity must increase to meet capacity. That can be done in different ways. You can increase seats per vehicle or number of vehicles. Each of those decisions have different impacts on dispatch interval. You can send out fewer people quickly or more people slowly and get the same result. It is just dumb to decide that first and then force the experience to it instead of starting with the experience first and determining how it is to be achieved.

Everything is designed but there are constraints and limitations in the process.

You’re misunderstanding dispatch interval in this context. On its lowest end It’s not a function of operations or track length or guest flow. It’s a limitation set by the constraints of the ride system or aspects of the ride system itself.

I have never said you decide the dispatch interval first. It’s not something that is decided, it’s something that is dictated by other aspects of the ride system as designed. The length of the track and the length of the experience is not one of them.

All aspects of the experience and design are important and all have impacts. But track length/cycle time alone does not impact capacity.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Everything is designed but there are constraints and limitations in the process.

You’re misunderstanding dispatch interval in this context. On its lowest end It’s not a function of operations or track length or guest flow. It’s a limitation set by the constraints of the ride system or aspects of the ride system itself.

I have never said you decide the dispatch interval first. It’s not something that is decided, it’s something that is dictated by other aspects of the ride system as designed. The length of the track and the length of the experience is not one of them.

I’m not misunderstanding, I’m just not stuck on observation. Which is why I gave the formula that lets you work through those constraints and limitations.

You keep saying dispatch interval has to be known, and that is not true. The ride system also does not have to be known. It too is a choice based on the capacity goal and desired experience. Attractions have changed ride system during development to better achieve those goals.

You start with a capacity goal, determine the experience and then figure out how to achieve it.

 

[peter11435]

I’m not misunderstanding, I’m just not stuck on observation. Which is why I gave the formula that lets you work through those constraints and limitations.

You keep saying dispatch interval has to be known, and that is not true. The ride system also does not have to be known. It too is a choice based on the capacity goal and desired experience. Attractions have changed ride system during development to better achieve those goals.

You are. Minimum dispatch interval is not an observation. It’s a limitation of the ride system. And your formula does not let you “work through” those limitations and constraints. That is the exact reason some times ride systems need to change.

Dispatch interval absolutely must be known to calculate cycle time. You can’t know cycle time without knowing the minimum dispatch interval. You can’t know load time without knowing minimum dispatch interval.

You start with a capacity goal, determine the experience and then figure out how to achieve it.

Yes, absolutely this. And the length of the track or cycle time doesn’t prevent your ability to “figure out how to achieve it”

 

[flynnibus]

There is only a consequence to the number if you do nothing to compensate.

"consequence" is a different word than "dependency" -- You're changing the discussion.

I KNOW the impact DEPENDS -- that was never debated. I never said IT ALWAYS CHANGES - you said it doesn't matter... And when proven wrong, you keep back peddling with changes to be made so the RESULT doesn't change. When you need to make changes to preserve a result.. that means the variables MATTERED. That there was a dependency.

If you add an extra 200 feet of track to Winnie the Pooh but keep the same number of vehicles as it has today then it will obviously increase vehicle spacing and dispatch interval resulting in less capacity.

And that's what was said -- but you insisted until now it doesn't matter. You've finally admitted it does actually matter..

But you can add vehicles to maintain the same vehicle spacing and dispatch interval you have today in order to reach the same capacity.

No "buts" needed. The dependency is already proven. We all know you can CHANGE things to make it work and get the same result.. that was never said otherwise.

The problem is, you can't always make the changes needed to keep things the same. If you increase cycle duration, but can't compensate with additional vehicles because you didn't change the the ride enough to actually run another train.. you will have to accept increasing your dispatch timing.. and thus reduce throughput.

Now you've finally recognized what was said from the beginning. If you increase the length of the ride (and by inference, increase the duration) you will likely reduce throughput. When dealing with gravity coasters the constraints on running additional trains are very significant and result in MUCH bigger steps of size needed to accommodate additional trains.

This is because ride length is not the limiting or contributing factor when it comes to throughput/capacity.

You just stepped through why it does matter.. and requires compensation to adapt... then conclude it doesn't because you can work around it. That is idiocy. The fact you had to work around it means IT DOES MATTER.

The flaw in your argument is that track length is only relevant to cycle time. Yes, cycle time can be used to calculate capacity. But cycle time itself can not be known or calculated unless you know the minimum dispatch interval.

You're doing it backwards. Dispatch interval is what you compute from your design... not the other way around. It's not an input.. It's bounded by your ride's design and you calculate a theoretical min and max window. If you don't like the result... you then go and change the design to adjust the constraints that impact those min and max boundaries.

 

[FerretAfros]

I don't really understand the point of replacing the existing two tracks with one, custom designed track.

You'd have to spend the time and money designing something from scratch, while working within the confines of an existing building. Unless the plan is to tear the whole thing down like Tokyo? I don't see Disney bothering with that.

And what kind of coaster would it even be? One big downward spiral like Disneyland? Another version of Cosmic Rewind?

In theory, the advantage of consolidating to a single track is that it lends itself to more efficient operations. Assuming everything else remains equal (capacity, popularity, etc.) it would roughly require half as much maintenance to serve the same number of guests, because you now have half as many load stations, lift hills, brakes, linear feet of track, vehicles, etc. to inspect and repair.

There would also be a significant operations savings, since the current version essentially requires enough CMs to operate two separate rides (since that’s what they functionally are). It wouldn’t be completely halved, because a lot of the general crowd control positions are shared between the tracks (greeter, LL merge, etc.), but it would be close.

That said, having a single track then puts a lot more pressure on that one track to perform at capacity throughout the day. They can’t close one side of the ride for maintenance or repairs and keep the other side running, and even having a single slow dispatch would have a bigger capacity impact, as each dispatch represents a larger group of riders than the current 6-person trains.

Additionally, DL’s Space Mountain is a notoriously high-stress attraction for CMs, with dispatch intervals as fast as 16 seconds when running at full capacity. While waiting to board, I’s not unusual to hear the alarm that the ride is starting “cascade” (back up due to slow loading), at which point a vehicle will be sent for a second trip without giving the guests and opportunity to unload, in order to try and clear the brake zones behind it. They have found a lot of ways to keep guests moving quickly at that attraction, but it requires everybody to pay attention in a way that WDW’s more tourist-focused crowds would likely struggle with. It seems like a lot of WDI’s recent loading area designs have had downright-leisurely load times (Rise, Tron, and especially Ratatouille), so it’s difficult to imagine a modern attraction require such rushed loading, or that WDW’s guests and CMs would be able to keep up.

 

[flynnibus]

Dlr space mountain basically has CMs yelling like militants at guests