Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
or more like Disney ordered very little number of trains vs the low price they demanded.
Not worth it cost wise.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Appalling state of the monorail cabins
- Thread starter ptaylor
- Start date
Not worth it cost wise.
s8film40
Well-Known Member
Yes my point is that the Innovia 200 has seen many advancements over the Mark VI, there was about 15 years between development after all. Just because an older train will "fit" on a system doesn't mean that the newer trains aren't more advanced. By that logic the Mark I and Mark VII are essentially the same.
The rumor as I heard it wasn't that Bombardier turned down the order, but rather the small order was cited as the reason for the high cost.
s8film40
Well-Known Member
Most managers when given suggestions will come up with excuses. Something like "that's a great idea but we can't inconvenience our guests to clean the trains". Most cast members over time will stop making suggestions and actually begin repeating these excuses to guests and other cast members when the subject comes up.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
You're just grasping at straws. Different motors aren't that big of a deal. The controls in Disney's monorails have been upgraded since 1990. The legacy line in Las Vegas wasn't part of the headache. The differences are minor and irrelevant to why Disney is not buying new trains from Bombardier. Transit style systems are intended to be upgraded and rebuilt. The only really big difference is the level boarding, as that would require raising the station platforms.
s8film40
Well-Known Member
I never said WDW couldn't use Innovia 200's, I was simply stating that they call them something different because advancements have been made. They didn't just sell Las Vegas Mark VI trains, they redesigned them, they are the next generation of monorails. With a few modifications WDW could easily order some Innovia 200's, I feel certain that if they did they wouldn't just say "hey we ordered some more of the same trains we had" but instead they would unveil the new Mark VIII monorails.
NormC
Well-Known Member
The monorail condition is unnacceptable by any measure. There are no valid excuses only lazyness and apathy on the part of the corporation. Hopefully something is going to be done about this. Take one train at a time and do a frame off restoration like a Concours quality car. Even the cabs should be pristine. It is called pride. Pride in your work leads to a great show. All CMs should take pride in their jobs and not just hold up railings. I know many do but the lazy ones hurt their image.
Figment2005
Well-Known Member
Okay, I just pick up on it.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
They are called something different because Bombardier revamped their branding and renamed a lot of their transit products. The INNOVIA 200 is the M-VI.
Disney's naming doesn't mean much. The Mark VIIs are rebuilt Mark Vs, using the same bodies (sans nose) and chassis (which came from the Mark IIIs). The exact same could be done to the Mark VIs and they could still be renamed Mark VIIIs if Disney desired.
peachykeen
Well-Known Member
It was a while ago but I'm pretty sure this was exactly what I was told. Something about how it would slow down cycle times. Yet at the same time pilots were being told to "cool down" the unofficial cycle time competitions and to drive more slowly and "safely." Except during the exit. Then it was "put the fastest drivers in and get 9 minute cycles."
s8film40
Well-Known Member
Well like I said only Bombarier can really explain what their naming means. So here you go, someone from Bombardier clearly stating the Innovia 300 is their 3rd generation monorail.
s8film40
Well-Known Member
Yep, I still strongly believe the fastest drivers are the safest.
peachykeen
Well-Known Member
Agree 100%. Generally the fast drivers (I liked to consider myself one, getting sub-9 minute cycles during exits when other fast drivers were in Express trains) are the ones most comfortable with the trains and have the best feel for them. They were usually more confident on the radio as well, and with train issues.
Figment2005
Well-Known Member
It works just like the highway, put 4 fast drivers in place on the beam and things will be safe, smooth, and fast. Put a single slow driver in the middle and it starts backing horribly.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
then have fixed shifts.. 4 trains for fast drivers, 5 trains for slow ones
s8film40
Well-Known Member
It's a little more complicated than just fast drivers not mixing with slow drivers. The fast drivers are usually fast because they know what they are doing and have an interest and passion for driving the trains. The fast drivers are paying attention more, aware of their position on the track in relation to other trains and know the distances needed for acceleration and braking. The slow drivers are usually unsure of themselves not as comfortable and not able to react to situations as well. There are of course exceptions to both of those groups. In other words fast drivers can mix in just fine with slow drivers but everyone has to go the speed of the slowest driver. The more important point that was being made was that fast drivers are safer. Of course the ironic part of this is the managements belief that driving fast isn't safe, which is true in extreme situations but ultimately overall wrong.then have fixed shifts.. 4 trains for fast drivers, 5 trains for slow ones
msteel
Well-Known Member
Don't take it that I'm for people losing jobs, especially skilled people like good monorail drivers, but the current effort of automating the trains should make all "drivers" equally skilled and all trains run "fast" thus improving most aspects of the system, no?
Nick Wilde
Well-Known Member
Funny thing. I never noticed anything like this. I wonder how many people haven't noticed either...
s8film40
Well-Known Member
Ideally the system should all work as one system, meaning that the computer controlling it should take into account all the trains simultaneously. My understanding is that Disney has chosen not to let the new automation system dispatch the trains from the stations. So I would not expect this to be quite as efficient as other systems but it should be much better than it currently is.
I wouldn't immediately assume that human dispatched trains (or manually closed doors with automatic dispatch) will be less efficient. Having a human control the doors means that when crowds are light, the doors can be closed seconds after they open, rather than waiting for a timer to countdown. If a sudden unexpected surge occurs, then the doors can be held for a few more seconds to pack more people on, which is potentially more efficient than leaving guests behind. The system will likely have goal times for how long the trains should be at the stops, as long as they are set realistically things should go smoothly.
s8film40
Well-Known Member
This kind of thinking is really the real problem with human dispatched trains.
Here's a hypothetical example imagine this is the express beam. A driver (Train 1) at MK station notices their train isn't anywhere near full sees a large group coming up and waits. Meanwhile the train behind this driver (Train 2) is approaching the Contemporary. The large group is followed by another large group so the driver doesn't want to cut it off, after all those people just watched him wait for the other group. Now the train in front of this driver (Train 3) is loading at TTC and the train behind is just pulling up to the hold point for MK. All the people on their way to MK are now hearing the driver of their train (Train 2) say they are holding for traffic clearance. Finally the first driver (Train 1) closes up and heads off, at the same time the train in front of him (Train 3) just pulled out of TTC. The guests that just walked up the ramp at TTC are now waiting for the train that is just then leaving MK, they will now have an extended wait. Now (Train 2) finally makes it's way into the MK the extra time it waited at the hold point will ensure that (Train 3) has to also wait at the MK hold point. Train 1 is now passing the Polynesian, Train 2 is finishing up loading at MK and Train 3 is holding to get to the MK. Meanwhile with the extended wait theres now a fairly large group waiting at TTC. Train 1 will take a little longer than it should to load as a result, however train 2 and 3 are right behind Train 1 and as a result there are only a few people on the platforms so their station time is very low. As a result of this cycle created Train 1 will now experience a larger amount of guests at each station and will have longer station times while the other two trains experience a low number of guests and virtually no station times. Until corrected the system as a whole is now operating as if there were only one or two trains instead of three. Guests will have longer waits and more crowded trains all because one driver wanted to wait for a few more guests. This happens every day at WDW and this type of activity is what generally makes a "slow" driver rather than driving skills. The advantage to an automated system is it makes these decisions knowing where the other trains are, it knows that the next train is on the way and regardless of people trying to catch the one in the station it dispatches it out of the way.