Realistically, How Much Time Does Matterhorn Have Left?

[Mr. Sullivan]

I was having this conversation with some Disney friends today, and I kinda wanted to hear from more Disneyland folks on the subject.

Matterhorn is an iconic piece of history and there is no doubting that. But there is also no doubting that it's age is becoming more and more noticeable, and I don't mean in the ride experience itself. Disney is now having to do extensive refurbishments on it on a near annual basis and while annual refurbs are not uncommon with Disney, it is a little uncommon to see with rides like this.

Last year, it suffered down time due to an undisclosed incident that accelerated the need to work on it, and this year it is down once again for an extended period of time for reportedly pretty major work being done to it including major exterior work (much needed as we've seen continuous damage to the exterior over time).

It's clear that so far Disney has been committed to keeping her alive, but realistically, how much longer do you think this can continue? The ride is pushing 70 which is already long in the tooth for a roller coaster as is, and were it not so iconic and important to Disney history, realistically I think it would've been gone a long time ago. But at what point does how iconic it is stop being a factor? At what point does what the ride needs outweigh the point in doing it?

I've seen the conversation for a few years now that they're only able to do so much to it refurbishment wise before they're required by the state to bring it up to modern codes which would essentially require them to demolish the whole thing. It seems no matter what, whether they work on it or not, it's entering the twilight of it's life span.

My friends and I sort of arrived at the conclusion that it might finally meet its end sometime in the next 10-15 years, and that any longer than that would be a genuine surprise. But what about you all? We are by admission more WDWers than DLers so we don't know all of the ins and outs and word that comes around on Matterhorn like those really deep into DL may, so I'm interested in your thoughts.

 

[Disney Irish]

Other than the shell of the "mountain", how much is actually still the original parts? I would have to assume that the "coaster" part of the ride has been replaced so many times by this point that its no longer the "original", so isn't actually 70 years old, not to mention system upgrades and the like. So in reality as long as the shell remains intact (which also has received repairs/upgrades over the years) they could continue to run it for another 25-30 years easily in my opinion.

And my understanding the rumor for this extended refurb is that they are trying to minimize future vibrations on the "mountain" by trying to separate the track from the "mountain" even more. This indicates to me that Disney plans on Matterhorn being around for a long time to come. So I wouldn't be surprised to see it hit its 100th birthday a few years after DL does.

 

[Too Many Hats]

I’m an angry reactionary Disneyland purist, and even I think the Matterhorn should be tastefully updated sooner rather than later.

I have no idea if this is realistic, but I’d love to replace the current dilapidated tracks with a pair of Rocky Mountain Construction single-rail coasters. Not actually sure if it’d be feasible to install a new coaster within the current “mountain;” I’d fully support bulldozing and re-building if that’s the only option.

To answer your question, I think 10-15 more years is a good guess. 75 years would be a great run! Nothing lasts forever.

 

[Touchdown]

I’m an angry reactionary Disneyland purist, and even I think the Matterhorn should be tastefully updated sooner rather than later.

I have no idea if this is realistic, but I’d love to replace the current dilapidated tracks with a pair of Rocky Mountain Construction single-rail coasters. Not actually sure if it’d be feasible to install a new coaster within the current “mountain;” I’d fully support bulldozing and re-building if that’s the only option.

To answer your question, I think 10-15 more years is a good guess. 75 years would be a great run! Nothing lasts forever.

Disney isn’t going to put an RMC single rail in, they are notorious unreliable and the restraints prevent enough people from riding them. As it’s pretty much a historic landmark at this point, I expect them to keep it and only if necessary tear down and create an exact replica.

 

[Too Many Hats]

Disney isn’t going to put an RMC single rail in, they are notorious unreliable and the restraints prevent enough people from riding them. As it’s pretty much a historic landmark at this point, I expect them to keep it and only if necessary tear down and create an exact replica.

Yeah my RMC fantasy is just a fantasy. But I actually disagree that Disney will create an exact replica whenever they get around to replacing the current track. I bet they’d love to replace it with something more marketable and reliable.

 

[Disney Irish]

Why would Disney replace the worlds first steel tube coaster with a single rail RMC? Honestly Matterhorn is almost a landmark due to its historical nature, so I could never seen them replacing the tubular track with another type of coaster track.

Also it has been said that if Disney were to tear it down it loses its grandfather clause and couldn't be built exactly the same. Due to modern building standards you couldn't build the same mountain again in the same spot, its too small of a plot of land, you'd need one twice the size in order to rebuild it. So no I can't see that happening either, as there isn't anything in the area worth losing in order to rebuild it to modern standards.

 

[DLR92]

Does anyone know how much space it compares to Big Thunder Mountain?

We don’t truly know what is going with the exact reasons for the refurbishment taking so long. My guess it has to the parts being no longer easily available with the original manufacturer who build the attraction long gone. I don’t know who is Disney hiring for new parts. That I would like to know. I’m sure Disney still has the patents to the right to every part of the attraction.

If Matterhorn had to be rebuild, Autopia and the submarine attraction would have to be annexed. Which I’m totally fine with for even new real estate to be free up for new developments.

 

[Figments Friend]

I personally do not see the Matterhorn going anywhere off the map anytime soon.
Far too iconic and woven into the tapestry that is Disneyland.

I would like to think that the Company will keep it going as long as possible, and with today’s tools I don’t see any reason why they could not.

Now….if they added some additional cushioning to those bobsleds….that would be a welcome upgrade for the future.


-

 

[Too Many Hats]

Why would Disney replace the worlds first steel tube coaster with a single rail RMC?

Because it's 65 years old, falling apart, and an unpleasant experience for most guests?

Disney will have to cross this bridge eventually.

 

[Disney Irish]

Because it's 65 years old, falling apart, and an unpleasant experience for most guests?

Disney will have to cross this bridge eventually.

And yet, it has been slowly being repaired and updated over the years and still has relatively long wait times compared to its experience. So clearly it’s an icon that Disney wants to keep around and so do guests.

So while the experience can and I expect will continue to be updated for many years to come. I don’t expect them to completely replace the tubular track with another track type. And frankly it would honestly lose much of its iconic status with a single rail track from RMC. As at that point it just lost any historic aspect, which is part of the experience for many guests and coaster enthusiasts alike.

So while an interesting idea from a ride experience standpoint I just don’t see it happening. I suspect it’ll be torn down and replaced by something else if Disney ever has to make that decision on removal or switching out track types.

But then again, as we know anything is possible even if improbable, so who knows.

 

[Touchdown]

Because it's 65 years old, falling apart, and an unpleasant experience for most guests?

Disney will have to cross this bridge eventually.

Yes and despite it having a good capacity it’s the third ride to usually sell out LL. Clearly unpopular.

 

[truecoat]

Does anyone know how much space it compares to Big Thunder Mountain?

The Matterhorn is about 2/3 the space of what BTM has.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

What level of work being done would involve the state safety mandates taking effect?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I've seen the conversation for a few years now that they're only able to do so much to it refurbishment wise before they're required by the state to bring it up to modern codes which would essentially require them to demolish the whole thing. It seems no matter what, whether they work on it or not, it's entering the twilight of it's life span.

While a Level 3 Alternation is defined as work encompassing more than 50% of a building area it still is a limited scope of modernization. Chapter 9 of the California Existing Building Code isn’t very long. Work though can be done in smaller phases of time to maintain a facility. The big thing that triggers extremely comprehensive modernization is a change in occupancy (use) because that’s the thing around which the building codes are centered.

Also it has been said that if Disney were to tear it down it loses its grandfather clause and couldn't be built exactly the same. Due to modern building standards you couldn't build the same mountain again in the same spot, its too small of a plot of land, you'd need one twice the size in order to rebuild it. So no I can't see that happening either, as there isn't anything in the area worth losing in order to rebuild it to modern standards.

Small and tight attractions are still allowed. Things like the Lego Discover Centers still get new, very small dark rides built into existing buildings. Right now the track replacement for Big Thunder Mountain Railroad at Magic Kingdom involves extending the reach envelope but it’s still workable with the updates. Even things like the maintenance access can remain quite tight (24” minimum clear width) because of how they’re classified in rides.

 

[Too Many Hats]

Also it has been said that if Disney were to tear it down it loses its grandfather clause and couldn't be built exactly the same. Due to modern building standards you couldn't build the same mountain again in the same spot, its too small of a plot of land, you'd need one twice the size in order to rebuild it. So no I can't see that happening either, as there isn't anything in the area worth losing in order to rebuild it to modern standards.

This is definitely a concern. I probably care about the iconic mountain itself more than the actual coaster within it, so I worry that any Matterhorn 2.0 will by necessity look different and be less perfect/iconic than the original due to modern safety requirements.

And yet, it has been slowly being repaired and updated over the years and still has relatively long wait times compared to its experience. So clearly it’s an icon that Disney wants to keep around and so do guests.

So while the experience can and I expect will continue to be updated for many years to come. I don’t expect them to completely replace the tubular track with another track type. And frankly it would honestly lose much of its iconic status with a single rail track from RMC. As at that point it just lost any historic aspect, which is part of the experience for many guests and coaster enthusiasts alike.

So while an interesting idea from a ride experience standpoint I just don’t see it happening. I suspect it’ll be torn down and replaced by something else if Disney ever has to make that decision on removal or switching out track types.

But then again, as we know anything is possible even if improbable, so who knows.

Yes and despite it having a good capacity it’s the third ride to usually sell out LL. Clearly unpopular.

It's still massively popular. I ride it infrequently because the lines are too long. My point is that it may become inoperable in the near future (also the prompt of this thread), and Disney will have to make a tough decision. There have been insider rumors for years that Disney cannot simply make repairs to the structure/coaster indefinitely; there will come an expiration date.

In that case, in my imagination a single-rail RMC could navigate the tight corners of the current structure (or a similarly-sized rebuilt structure) while simulating the iconic bobsleds with its single-file seating. It'd also be super smooth and could have a more intentional layout. It'd be popular with guests, most of whom don't know or care about the world's first tubular steel track coaster. I don't work for Disney, I have no insider info, and I barely know how coasters work. This is just my pie-in-the-sky fantasy contribution.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What level of work being done would involve the state safety mandates taking effect?

There is no single answer.

Certain regulations like those related to workplace safety and ride operations regulated by CalOSHA are going to be required at all times. New regulations get rolled out over time first impacting new work and then later (years usually) applying to existing facilities.

Building regulations typically get triggered when changes are made but there are different levels of compliance required.

Something not usually mentioned in these discussions is insurance. If you want your facility to be or stay insured then there can be additional requirements. FM Global in particular has their own set of building details that have become their own type of standard.

 

[Disney Irish]

While a Level 3 Alternation is defined as work encompassing more than 50% of a building area it still is a limited scope of modernization. Chapter 9 of the California Existing Building Code isn’t very long. Work though can be done in smaller phases of time to maintain a facility. The big thing that triggers extremely comprehensive modernization is a change in occupancy (use) because that’s the thing around which the building codes are centered.


Small and tight attractions are still allowed. Things like the Lego Discover Centers still get new, very small dark rides built into existing buildings. Right now the track replacement for Big Thunder Mountain Railroad at Magic Kingdom involves extending the reach envelope but it’s still workable with the updates. Even things like the maintenance access can remain quite tight (24” minimum clear width) because of how they’re classified in rides.

It not about building a small dark ride, obviously that can still be done, as most are only one or two stories.

But what I've understood was that in order to get a mountain that tall (147ft) again in California the base would have to be twice as wide. Now this has always been based on rumor and conjecture, so I don't have a specific rule to cite for you.

 

[Disney Irish]

This is definitely a concern. I probably care about the iconic mountain itself more than the actual coaster within it, so I worry that any Matterhorn 2.0 will by necessity look different and be less perfect/iconic than the original due to modern safety requirements.

Well to me, and I assume a lot of guests and coaster enthusiasts, the mountain and the coaster go hand-in-hand.

It's still massively popular. I ride it infrequently because the lines are too long. My point is that it may become inoperable in the near future (also the prompt of this thread), and Disney will have to make a tough decision. There have been insider rumors for years that Disney cannot simply make repairs to the structure/coaster indefinitely; there will come an expiration date.

In that case, in my imagination a single-rail RMC could navigate the tight corners of the current structure (or a similarly-sized rebuilt structure) while simulating the iconic bobsleds with its single-file seating. It'd also be super smooth and could have a more intentional layout. It'd be popular with guests, most of whom don't know or care about the world's first tubular steel track coaster. I don't work for Disney, I have no insider info, and I barely know how coasters work. This is just my pie-in-the-sky fantasy contribution.

If it gets to the point of it not being repairable anymore, that is the time it would be torn down completely and replaced with something else. Also, and again none of here have any inside information, but based on rumors over the last few refurbs they have been doing the work in order to separate the track from the mountain as much as possible. The idea is to take the stress off the mountain itself but also to make it easier to repair in the future. That again to me indicates that Disney has every intention to keep it as it is for a long time to come and not just do a band-aid fix to just keep it running for a few more years.

Also you can use any type of track type to get the same effect as Matterhorn, so it doesn't have to be a single rail RMC type. It just seems more like you like that type of coaster rather than it being a good fit. Not that I disagree with you on it working in that situation, just saying that you don't need it in order to get the same result as the existing coaster.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It not about building a small dark ride, obviously that can still be done, as most are only one or two stories.

But what I've understood was that in order to get a mountain that tall (147ft) again in California the base would have to be twice as wide. Now this has always been based on rumor and conjecture, so I don't have a specific rule to cite for you.

That’s sounds more like someone mixing up zoning requirements such as floor area ratios and setbacks. It’s zoning codes that would have something like a minimum footprint because they typically want a certain amount of a property to be used. Even if there were a prescribed minimum height to area ratio you’re allowed to not follow prescribed requirements if you can demonstrate the equivalent safety of a proposed alternative.

 

[Disney Irish]

That’s sounds more like someone mixing up zoning requirements such as floor area ratios and setbacks. It’s zoning codes that would have something like a minimum footprint because they typically want a certain amount of a property to be used. Even if there were a prescribed minimum height to area ratio you’re allowed to not follow prescribed requirements if you can demonstrate the equivalent safety of a proposed alternative.

Maybe so. I doubt we'll ever get to that point of having to ever have to find out, as I don't expect this to even be a situation to come up in at least my lifetime.