EPCOT Test Track to be reimagined

[DisneyCane]

Until it didn't. Did they change the design before the 'incident' recently? If not they could be bound legally to change the design similar to how changes are made to cars and planes etc when accidents happen and the blame lies somewhere in the design process even though they may have ben safe for decades until that problem occurred.

I genuinely have no idea but I'm just pointing out that perhaps for safety reasons that Disney are unhappy with the design where the accident happened. Perhaps they're just being cheap or taking the easy option, I'm not discounting that but genuinely don't know.

They aren't "legally bound" to do anything. If they fix the doors and an incident happens that causes an injury, they will be liable with or without design changes.

From an engineering standpoint, I don't understand how there would ever be a collision with the doors. There should be (and I imagine there are) sensors that detect the door is open and also detect the vehicle location at the point where it can be stopped before reaching the door. Simple logic should determine if the doors are not open when the vehicle reaches that point, an E-stop is triggered. The system should be designed fail safe with redundant sensors as well as sensors designed to fail in the "safe" state (will indicate door closed when it is actually open in the event of sensor failure).

If designed properly, there should only be an infinitesimal chance for the doors to be closed and the vehicle to continue and crash into them. To account for the infinitesimal chance the door material should be (and apparently is) low enough density to not cause a serious injury.

Other rides have far more dangerous potential failures but the systems manage to function reliably. If the ride system allowed the train on EE or Cosmic Rewind to begin motion with the switch track not in place there would be a derailment that could easily cause serious injuries yet those safety systems work reliably.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

They aren't "legally bound" to do anything. If they fix the doors and an incident happens that causes an injury, they will be liable with or without design changes.

From an engineering standpoint, I don't understand how there would ever be a collision with the doors. There should be (and I imagine there are) sensors that detect the door is open and also detect the vehicle location at the point where it can be stopped before reaching the door. Simple logic should determine if the doors are not open when the vehicle reaches that point, an E-stop is triggered. The system should be designed fail safe with redundant sensors as well as sensors designed to fail in the "safe" state (will indicate door closed when it is actually open in the event of sensor failure).

If designed properly, there should only be an infinitesimal chance for the doors to be closed and the vehicle to continue and crash into them. To account for the infinitesimal chance the door material should be (and apparently is) low enough density to not cause a serious injury.

Other rides have far more dangerous potential failures but the systems manage to function reliably. If the ride system allowed the train on EE or Cosmic Rewind to begin motion with the switch track not in place there would be a derailment that could easily cause serious injuries yet those safety systems work reliably.

Does anyone know what failsafes are built into the ride?

Obviously one of them is that the doors are designed to break away if they are hit so as not to injure guests... at least not seriously. It makes sense there would also be some sensor that would trigger an e-stop somewhere along the way, though perhaps that is problematic given the point at which the doors are supposed to open and the speed at which the car is travelling?

Like @mergatroid, I honestly don't know. I am just curious because this is being talked about as something that is very basic to design and repair, but obviously something has gone wrong here and I assume it is not because the Imagineers are incompetent or missing a simple fix.

 

[DisneyCane]

Does anyone know what failsafes are built into the ride?

Obviously one of them is that the doors are designed to break away if they are hit so as not to injure guests... at least not seriously. It makes sense there would also be some sensor that would trigger an e-stop somewhere along the way, though perhaps that is problematic given the point at which the doors are supposed to open and the speed at which the car is travelling?

Like @mergatroid, I honestly don't know. I am just curious because this is being talked about as something that is very basic to design and repair, but obviously something has gone wrong here and I assume it is not because the Imagineers are incompetent or missing a simple fix.

I guess we'd have to go back and use videos where the doors were working to estimate but I wonder what the approximate speed of the vehicle is at the point the doors are supposed to open. It probably feels faster than it is because you really aren't traveling that fast when you pass the cameras for the on ride photo.

As for the lack of repair, it could be something similar to the Yeti where Imagineering wants operations to pay for it and operations wants Imagineering to pay for it. Personally, I think that if a company is going to run with a structure that makes different parts act like different businesses, then the one that designs and builds the ride (Imagineering) should provide a warranty to operations as if a 3rd party had delivered a ride.

 

[mergatroid]

They aren't "legally bound" to do anything. If they fix the doors and an incident happens that causes an injury, they will be liable with or without design changes.

From an engineering standpoint, I don't understand how there would ever be a collision with the doors. There should be (and I imagine there are) sensors that detect the door is open and also detect the vehicle location at the point where it can be stopped before reaching the door. Simple logic should determine if the doors are not open when the vehicle reaches that point, an E-stop is triggered. The system should be designed fail safe with redundant sensors as well as sensors designed to fail in the "safe" state (will indicate door closed when it is actually open in the event of sensor failure).

If designed properly, there should only be an infinitesimal chance for the doors to be closed and the vehicle to continue and crash into them. To account for the infinitesimal chance the door material should be (and apparently is) low enough density to not cause a serious injury.

Other rides have far more dangerous potential failures but the systems manage to function reliably. If the ride system allowed the train on EE or Cosmic Rewind to begin motion with the switch track not in place there would be a derailment that could easily cause serious injuries yet those safety systems work reliably.

When I say 'legally bound' I should perhaps have used the phrase 'advised by their lawyers'. A bit like how everyone said that Disney 'were told by their lawyers' to remove overhead objects on rides such as the falling rocks on BTM and how Universal now seems to have nets underneath any coaster that goes anywhere near a guest walkway. There's no law saying they have to do this but probably their lawyers telling them that the costs of a potential lawsuit could be higher and far easier to lose if they don't take their advice. So perhaps Disney's lawyers have told them that if there's another 'incident' following the last one that Disney did nothing to alter from the last time, that any person making a claim would have a greater chance of winning even more money and that Disney wouldn't look good following it. So if they fix the doors with a new design and it happens again whilst they'd still be liable they might not be in as much trouble as if they'd just ignored any shortfalls in their original design by just replacing it with like for like. Yes they'd be liable in either case but I'm pretty sure that one option over the other would make a difference if only from a P.R. point of view if not a legal one too and their lawyers would tell them this.