Appalling state of the monorail cabins

[flynnibus]

In order to get the service that they "should" be receiving would end up ing almost everyone off because they would have to stop running them around 9 or 10 year round.

If so... Kind of disproves your earlier post now doesn't it?

 

[englanddg]

Well to give you an idea. When the hours for the monorails didn't end until an hour and a half after closing. On the EMH nights the monorails would receive about 0 maintenance because it was just a quick inspection by maintenance before they essentially started to get ready for service at 4:45. Now, the trains can actually receive some maintenance before having to return to service. In order to get the service that they "should" be receiving would end up ing almost everyone off because they would have to stop running them around 9 or 10 year round.

Youknow, I keep computers pre-loaded and ready to go for hot swaps when someone gets a random issue (hardware or software) so that my end users don't see a disruption in service.

I also keep servers in replication, so if one has an issue, I can flip end users over to the other server, and they don't notice any disruption in service.

I also keep spare printers ready to go in case Ricoh/Ikon can't repair one fast enough (because they need to order a part or something).

My point is, how difficult would it be to have one unit "out of service" daily, and do a comprehensive maintenance on it in a 24 - 36 hours and then take another unit offline for the same maintenance. Once you get a cycle going, they could all receive one full day of maintenance per week without the demands of guest availability.

They may do this, I dunno, but it would seem to me that would make sense.

 

[G00fyDad]

They may do this, I dunno, but it would seem to me that would make sense.

The current state of these things says that they don't. I would like to see them do it though.

 

[Voxel]

Youknow, I keep computers pre-loaded and ready to go for hot swaps when someone gets a random issue (hardware or software) so that my end users don't see a disruption in service.

I also keep servers in replication, so if one has an issue, I can flip end users over to the other server, and they don't notice any disruption in service.

I also keep spare printers ready to go in case Ricoh/Ikon can't repair one fast enough (because they need to order a part or something).

My point is, how difficult would it be to have one unit "out of service" daily, and do a comprehensive maintenance on it in a 24 - 36 hours and then take another unit offline for the same maintenance. Once you get a cycle going, they could all receive one full day of maintenance per week without the demands of guest availability.

They may do this, I dunno, but it would seem to me that would make sense.

This logic sadly doesn't work with older machines though. I could tell you horror stories of some ships, that just don't wanna stay repaired and spend most of their later career in port getting fixed. If the rumor is true what is said above about parts not being made I could understand a delay in some degrees. Company buy enough parts for what they assume what they need for a service life, but sometimes thats not enough or its to many. Its a rough game. Sometimes you get stuck with square wholes but only circle pegs are produced now so you have to make it work. Other times you have all square pegs that don't work with circle holes, then you gotta shave down the pegs.

I would love for it to be as simple as swapping out parts, but seeing mechanical repair it work it doesn't always work like that.

 

[englanddg]

This logic sadly doesn't work with older machines though. I could tell you horror stories of some ships, that just don't wanna stay repaired and spend most of their later career in port getting fixed. If the rumor is true what is said above about parts not being made I could understand a delay in some degrees. Company buy enough parts for what they assume what they need for a service life, but sometimes thats not enough or its to many. Its a rough game. Sometimes you get stuck with square wholes but only circle pegs are produced now so you have to make it work. Other times you have all square pegs that don't work with circle holes, then you gotta shave down the pegs.

I would love for it to be as simple as swapping out parts, but seeing mechanical repair it work it doesn't always work like that.

An easy solution for this, especially with the budgets involved, would be an in house CNC machine, rather than relying on outside sources like Grainger.

Bombadier may have made the current fleet, but there's no reason why Disney shouldn't have designs down to the metric level programmed into a CAD somewhere by now and be able to reproduce parts easily, especially high use parts like door units, etc.

While I tend to agree with the notion that a 20+ year old monorail fleet is probably ready for retirement, it doesn't excuse poor maintenance. And, for a unit that was custom to begin with, I fault one of two things...

1) There should never be an expectation of "regular parts" being available, and therefore a supply for on demand irregular parts should be available

or

2) The system was poorly designed (not the exterior fiberglass) in the first place to use uncommon parts, if the expectation is that the parts should be readily available.

And that's just parts...the other aspect is cosmetics. It doesn't take 24 hours to re-carpet, or to detail clean a car. Especially if you toss a well organized crew at it. Hence why a regular maintenance cycle, as opposed to running them into the ground before refurb, is a much better solution. Albeit more expensive, in terms of man hours, but a better solution.

Just like keeping a duplicate computer loaded and ready for swap, while more expensive in terms of hardware and software, is better than downtime.

 

[Voxel]

An easy solution for this, especially with the budgets involved, would be an in house CNC machine, rather than relying on outside sources like Grainger.

Bombadier may have made the current fleet, but there's no reason why Disney shouldn't have designs down to the metric level programmed into a CAD somewhere by now and be able to reproduce parts easily, especially high use parts like door units, etc.

While I tend to agree with the notion that a 20+ year old monorail fleet is probably ready for retirement, it doesn't excuse poor maintenance. And, for a unit that was custom to begin with, I fault one of two things...

1) There should never be an expectation of "regular parts" being available, and therefore a supply for on demand irregular parts should be available

or

2) The system was poorly designed (not the exterior fiberglass) in the first place to use uncommon parts, if the expectation is that the parts should be readily available.

And that's just parts...the other aspect is cosmetics. It doesn't take 24 hours to re-carpet, or to detail clean a car. Especially if you toss a well organized crew at it. Hence why a regular maintenance cycle, as opposed to running them into the ground before refurb, is a much better solution. Albeit more expensive, in terms of man hours, but a better solution.

Just like keeping a duplicate computer loaded and ready for swap, while more expensive in terms of hardware and software, is better than downtime.

I agree whole heartily with this. I was just stating how business runs, heck you would think that the Navy and Air Force would have the machinery to do this type of fabrication. But hell I have seen the Navy pay close to a million dollars to have a archaic part produced (By a company that produced it 20 years ago) and originally costed 300 dollars to buy. This type of thing get's absolutely ridiculous on both groups.

As for the design, Bombadier has the rights to the plans (as far as I am aware of) and are with in their full rights do deny Disney the blue prints for these monorails. And if these full blueprints are copy rights then Disney can not duplicate these parts. Who knows thought, Bombadier might even have a clause in the contract that Disney can not create the parts and have to go strictly through bombadier.

 

[englanddg]

I agree whole heartily with this. I was just stating how business runs, heck you would think that the Navy and Air Force would have the machinery to do this type of fabrication. But hell I have seen the Navy pay close to a million dollars to have a archaic part produced (By a company that produced it 20 years ago) and originally costed 300 dollars to buy. This type of thing get's absolutely ridiculous on both groups.

As for the design, Bombadier has the rights to the plans (as far as I am aware of) and are with in their full rights do deny Disney the blue prints for these monorails. And if these full blueprints are copy rights then Disney can not duplicate these parts. Who knows thought, Bombadier might even have a clause in the contract that Disney can not create the parts and have to go strictly through bombadier.

Yeah. I did government contracting. I've seen it too.

The fact is now they have outsourced so much of their intelligence (and I mean that in a practical way) that many GS positions have been relegated to menial decision making.

This is why an argument should always be made for interior control of important systems, not outsourcing it. The issue is that there are people with degrees from very prestigious universities who make the short term gain argument of cost control without having the long term in mind. And, by the time the consequences happen (because it can take years or decades) they are long gone, retired or moved on, and no longer care.

This mentality is destroying our military from the inside out (I think), and while we become stronger, we are also creating a financial monster (but, I'll drop the "military industrial complex" rant for now).

My point is, this is what you get when you outsource major units without maintaining enough general intelligence about it to be able to maintain it or even fix it (ahem...healthcare.gov...sneezes).

I don't think I've made my point well, so I hope it comes through...but, I do hear what your saying. And, if Disney did sign a deal like that with Bombadier, shame on them for not requesting a contractual agreement that the parts must be available throughout the lifespan of the agreement. A juicy center could have been met, 25 years ago when negotiating this, that Bombadier be the sole provider of parts, but also after a period of service, the units be replaced, by Bombadier. Disney doesn't have the bidding requirements the Government does.

 

[Voxel]

Yeah. I did government contracting. I've seen it too.

The fact is now they have outsourced so much of their intelligence (and I mean that in a practical way) that many GS positions have been relegated to menial decision making.

This is why an argument should always be made for interior control of important systems, not outsourcing it. The issue is that there are people with degrees from very prestigious universities who make the short term gain argument of cost control without having the long term in mind. And, by the time the consequences happen (because it can take years or decades) they are long gone, retired or moved on, and no longer care.

This mentality is destroying our military from the inside out (I think), and while we become stronger, we are also creating a financial monster (but, I'll drop the "military industrial complex" rant for now).

My point is, this is what you get when you outsource major units without maintaining enough general intelligence about it to be able to maintain it or even fix it (ahem...healthcare.gov...sneezes).

I don't think I've made my point well, so I hope it comes through...but, I do hear what your saying. And, if Disney did sign a deal like that with Bombadier, shame on them for not requesting a contractual agreement that the parts must be available throughout the lifespan of the agreement. A juicy center could have been met, 25 years ago when negotiating this, that Bombadier be the sole provider of parts, but also after a period of service, the units be replaced, by Bombadier. Disney doesn't have the bidding requirements the Government does.

I am agree competly the sub contractin of tasks creates an uncontrollable beast. I would be interested in readying that purchasing contracted if it was still around and what machinery they have in their shop for fixing of monorails

 

[Figment2005]

If so... Kind of disproves your earlier post now doesn't it?

How so?

 

[Nubs70]

Youknow, I keep computers pre-loaded and ready to go for hot swaps when someone gets a random issue (hardware or software) so that my end users don't see a disruption in service.

I also keep servers in replication, so if one has an issue, I can flip end users over to the other server, and they don't notice any disruption in service.

I also keep spare printers ready to go in case Ricoh/Ikon can't repair one fast enough (because they need to order a part or something).

My point is, how difficult would it be to have one unit "out of service" daily, and do a comprehensive maintenance on it in a 24 - 36 hours and then take another unit offline for the same maintenance. Once you get a cycle going, they could all receive one full day of maintenance per week without the demands of guest availability.

They may do this, I dunno, but it would seem to me that would make sense.

While this makes perfect sense, let's step into the mind of an MBA.

An idle piece of equipment is not producing, and this decreases operational effectiveness. Therefore, the equipment must operate to continue in the value stream or be eliminated.

 

[flynnibus]

How so?

You say it would take several more hours a day to do all the mechanical work that needs to be done... Yet before defend that they are 'very well maintained'.

I get your a young cm that is proud of the company and all.... But don't you see yourself just making excuses all the time?

 

[Nubs70]

You say it would take several more hours a day to do all the mechanical work that needs to be done... Yet before defend that they are 'very well maintained'.

I get your a young cm that is proud of the company and all.... But don't you see yourself just making excuses all the time?

If additional maintenance needs to be done and more hours downtime are not available, you get more people. No need to reduce monorail operating hours.

 

[Radok Block]

Here's the thing: the transportation experience ABSOLUTELY matters. I know one anecdote isn't proof of anything, but my kids' experience this summer at WDW is somewhat instructive. They spent a few days on property and did the full experience-- resort hotel, table service dining, multiple parks, Meet and Greets, the whole caboodle. You know what they talked about for months after returning home? The Auto Train that they rode down to FL and back on. Do they talk about WDW at all? Nope. It's the special train that they got to eat on and sleep on that mattered. That was the thing that reached them and that they wanted to relive again and again.

The monorail isn't what it used to be-- the fact that they're in airports now and the like makes it a different experience than in 1980, when the only place (to me at least) that you could ride a monorail was Disney. I adore the monorails for nostalgic reasons, but if they're not all that special anymore and WDW isn't interested in/able to keep them shipshape, then maybe their day has come and gone.

But the experience of park transit still needs to be unusual and different and special. Standard municipal-issue buses don't cut it. The monorail CAN be special if the powers that be want it to be. (I showed Mr. Radok the pic of the Tokyo Disneyland Monorail and he mentioned, 'well, they have bullet trains in Japan, so Disney has to raise the bar to make a monorail seem cool by comparison.') Make the monorail cool again!

 

[wdw71fan]

won't be an issue much longer.. (when viewed from perspective)

 

[FutureWorld1982]

won't be an issue much longer.. (when viewed from perspective)

So...? Better days ahead?

 

[Animaniac93-98]

You could always have 13 trains instead of 12 so that if/when one is down, capacity is not reduced.

 

[ford91exploder]

While this makes perfect sense, let's step into the mind of an MBA.

An idle piece of equipment is not producing, and this decreases operational effectiveness. Therefore, the equipment must operate to continue in the value stream or be eliminated.

And because the MBA does not actually understand the BUSINESS when that 'useless' asset which sits unused 99.9% of the time is not there when needed. The entire line comes to a hard stop and the downtime costs the purchase price of several of these 'useless' machines. But hey they saved a few hundred dollars in power and maintenance...


My personal favorite along these lines when I was in the logistics business was buying 'surplus' tools and inventory from one division of a company for .02-.05 on the dollar and reselling it to ANOTHER division of the company which sold me the stuff for .80 on the dollar. But hey some MBA got a bonus for clearing out USELESS stuff and another got a BONUS for paying less than par value...

People wonder why European and Asian executives laugh at American 'Business Expertise'... Madness

 

[ford91exploder]

Here's the thing: the transportation experience ABSOLUTELY matters. I know one anecdote isn't proof of anything, but my kids' experience this summer at WDW is somewhat instructive. They spent a few days on property and did the full experience-- resort hotel, table service dining, multiple parks, Meet and Greets, the whole caboodle. You know what they talked about for months after returning home? The Auto Train that they rode down to FL and back on. Do they talk about WDW at all? Nope. It's the special train that they got to eat on and sleep on that mattered. That was the thing that reached them and that they wanted to relive again and again.

The monorail isn't what it used to be-- the fact that they're in airports now and the like makes it a different experience than in 1980, when the only place (to me at least) that you could ride a monorail was Disney. I adore the monorails for nostalgic reasons, but if they're not all that special anymore and WDW isn't interested in/able to keep them shipshape, then maybe their day has come and gone.

But the experience of park transit still needs to be unusual and different and special. Standard municipal-issue buses don't cut it. The monorail CAN be special if the powers that be want it to be. (I showed Mr. Radok the pic of the Tokyo Disneyland Monorail and he mentioned, 'well, they have bullet trains in Japan, so Disney has to raise the bar to make a monorail seem cool by comparison.') Make the monorail cool again!

How about just making them as clean as the Trams in the Orlando airport... Naaahhh will never happen.

 

[ford91exploder]

If additional maintenance needs to be done and more hours downtime are not available, you get more people. No need to reduce monorail operating hours.

Or you buy purpose built tooling to get the maintenance done in the available time.

 

[ford91exploder]

Youknow, I keep computers pre-loaded and ready to go for hot swaps when someone gets a random issue (hardware or software) so that my end users don't see a disruption in service.

I also keep servers in replication, so if one has an issue, I can flip end users over to the other server, and they don't notice any disruption in service.

I also keep spare printers ready to go in case Ricoh/Ikon can't repair one fast enough (because they need to order a part or something).

My point is, how difficult would it be to have one unit "out of service" daily, and do a comprehensive maintenance on it in a 24 - 36 hours and then take another unit offline for the same maintenance. Once you get a cycle going, they could all receive one full day of maintenance per week without the demands of guest availability.

They may do this, I dunno, but it would seem to me that would make sense.

It makes sense but it costs money which could go towards the TDO executive bonus pool, as such will never happen.