MK Cars-Themed Attractions at Magic Kingdom

[peter11435]

When it comes to a brand new boiler - 7 years is extremely recent. Haha. That’s not even half of an FRA mandated inspection for locomotives that fall under those regulations.

7 years may be a fraction of the lifespan of a boiler. But it is not recent.

If the old boiler needed replaced and they were still years away from closing the attraction the only option is to replace it.

When the decision was made to replace the boiler they already knew the riverboat was on its way out.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

When the decision was made to replace the boiler they already knew the riverboat was on its way out.

If that’s true it’s terrible business planning.

There was either a reason to keep it operating, or there wasn’t.

 

[peter11435]

If that’s true it’s terrible business planning.

There was either a reason to keep it operating, or there wasn’t.

It is true.

There was a reason to keep it operating. Plans to close and replace the riverboat were still years away from being finalized. So they were going to maintain the boat and keep it operating until that time.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

It is true.

There was a reason to keep it operating. Plans to close and replace the riverboat were still years away from being finalized. So they were going to maintain the boat and keep it operating until that time.

I think you jumped over my point.

Why did they want to make a significant investment to keep it operating if they no longer wanted to invest in keeping it operating. What was the point of keeping it?

 

[MisterPenguin]

I think you jumped over my point.

Why did they want to make a significant investment to keep it operating if they no longer wanted to invest in keeping it operating. What was the point of keeping it?

Was it a cost differential? What is the cost of a new engine versus razing RoA and filling 11 acres with new attractions?

 

[EeyoreFan#24]

They also could have known there was no plan to reuse the riverboat and the boiler could be resold in relatively new condition or use a cheaper model.

Maybe they were just managing the reputational risk and letting finance take a secondary position. There's a bunch of reasons that could be looked at either way depending on your view.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Was it a cost differential? What is the cost of a new engine versus razing RoA and filling 11 acres with new attractions?

Oh no…. I’m not suggesting Disney would have used it as a sunk cost issue (though I wish they would have!).

I was saying if the riverboat was no longer an attraction the company wished to operate, there was no need to invest in it to continue to operate it.

I know the locomotives were evaluated at around the same time - with the Lilly Belle significantly delayed while they decided if they wanted to continue investing them.

Of course…. John Lassiter was involved during that time.

 

[ᗩLᘿᑕ ֊ᗩζᗩᗰ]

Of course…. John Lassiter was involved during that time.

Not sure what that has to do with anything... And not sure If I want to know. Ignorance being bliss and all. All this talk... Did anyone consider that they still plan to reuse the Riverboat elsewhere? Not saying that's the case, just another wrinkle to possibly add to the discussion.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Not sure what that has to do with anything... And not sure If I want to know. Ignorance being bliss and all.

Nothing bad haha. He is a huge fan of trains - he owns his own steam railroad, the same gauge as the Disney trains that operate at his vineyard.

He’s also a Disney Parks nerd in general - and I’m guessing he’s a reason we still have the rivers in California.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

Nothing bad haha. He is a huge fan of trains - he owns his own steam railroad, the same gauge as the Disney trains that operate at his vineyard.

He’s also a Disney Parks nerd in general - and I’m guessing he’s a reason we still have the rivers in California.

Yes and Disney gave him the rare honor of operating his locomotive on the DLRR! Crazy

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Yes and Disney gave him the rare honor of operating his locomotive on the DLRR! Crazy

I wish I could have been there that day!!!! Talk about “rare mileage”!!!!

 

[flynnibus]

I think you jumped over my point.

Why did they want to make a significant investment to keep it operating if they no longer wanted to invest in keeping it operating. What was the point of keeping it?

Because they are still a 365 day a year operation and years is... YEARS?

I can't believe you are arguing why they didn't let an attraction sit broken for years...

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Because they are still a 365 day a year operation and years is... YEARS?

I can't believe you are arguing why they didn't let an attraction sit broken for years...

Wasn’t exactly my point but I don’t think I’m doing a good job explaining it.

 

[flynnibus]

Wasn’t exactly my point but I don’t think I’m doing a good job explaining it.

Knowing you plan on sunsetting something isn't the same as deciding 'we gotta STOP NOW'. Deciding something is deadman walking doesn't mean they are opposed to maintaining something. It just means they know it's got an exit planned and they would manage their choices appropriately.

Remember, we're talking something that was a roadmap that was likely 5-10 years away... and likely not a hard target yet. Doing nothing and letting it sit and rot for so long wouldn't be a good look and not really a viable option if they knew the change wasn't in the short term.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It is true.

There was a reason to keep it operating. Plans to close and replace the riverboat were still years away from being finalized. So they were going to maintain the boat and keep it operating until that time.

Because they are still a 365 day a year operation and years is... YEARS?

I can't believe you are arguing why they didn't let an attraction sit broken for years...

Keeping the boat operating didn’t require the expense of a completely new boiler and continuing steam operations. Even if the boiler was completely unusable, they could have converted the boat to a different, cheaper and easier to operate propulsion method.

 

[Fox&Hound]

Has there been confirmation there will be be a store
Or food by the cars ride land/addition? All this talk of merchandise made me curious.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Knowing you plan on sunsetting something isn't the same as deciding 'we gotta STOP NOW'.

But there’s also a difference between regular maintenance and a brand new boiler.

My thinking is heavily influenced from the tourist railroad industry - a new boiler is a crazy high expense. Heck even the 15 year boiler inspection requirement is a major expense for heritage railroad operations.

Maybe to Disney a new boiler was a sensible financial decision for only 5-15 years of potential operation.

Or maybe….. there were plans to keep it like in California.

These aren’t final decisions that are made by only 1 person and plans are fluid and can change.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But there’s also a difference between regular maintenance and a brand new boiler.

My thinking is heavily influenced from the tourist railroad industry - a new boiler is a crazy high expense. Heck even the 15 year boiler inspection riddle is a major expense for heritage railroad operations.

Maybe to Disney a new boiler was a sensible financial decision for only 5-15 years of potential operation.

Or maybe….. there were plans to keep it like in California.

These aren’t final decisions that are made by only 1 person and plans are fluid and can change.

Disney really doesn’t plan that far out. They didn’t have a roadmap at the time planning for the eventual closure. But, they did feel there was enough utilization to pick the most expense choice when it came to their options for keeping the attraction operating.

 

[OrlandoRising]

Do you consider any criticism of changes to be baseless? For every person here that automatically hates any change that is made, there is a person who will mock and belittle anyone who doesn't step in line and love every change. It goes both ways here.

No, I don't consider any criticism of changes to be baseless. But I expect an argument beyond emotional/nostalgia-driven appeals or platitudes about what Walt would've done.

As another poster said, you seem to be setting up a straw man here by saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is telling you to "step in line and love every change," because this is not a binary choice.

Personally I think I am under- rather than overthinking the subject. My bar for deep thought doesn't hang so low that I reach it with a few sentences commencing with 'I can't quite explain why'.

Do share your thoughts on single IP lands in castle parks. Surely we can elevate the conversation above a snorefest meta-discussion about who is a fanboy or a hater.

My thoughts on single-IP lands in castle parks: Why not? There's no reasonable rule, nor should there be, that the castle parks must retain the exact parameters from 70 years ago. Their designs and offerings have evolved with new iterations -- I don't see why if Disneyland Paris changed the formula by having Discoveryland instead of Tomorrowland in 1992 that the castle parks can't include single-IP lands now, and they already have in Shanghai and Hong Kong.

All that matters to me is the execution.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I don't see why if Disneyland Paris changed the formula by having Discoveryland instead of Tomorrowland in 1992

The lands are the same though… space mountain, Autopia, Star tours, big counter service with a stage, circle vision.

That’s very different from Toy Story Land in Hong Kong.