HauntedMansionFLA
Well-Known Member
Does anyone have an idea how many people per hour will be possible to ride the banshee ride and boat ride?? I know Pirates and Soarin can serve lots of guests per hour. Just curious.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
AVATAR land - the specifics
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
Well the Banshee ride should theoretically be considerably better than Soarin with four theaters instead of Soarin's (current) two. Soarin is said to be somewhere in the range of 1300 people per hour more or less I believe (at least according to an old post from Photodave). Though the question is whether the individual theaters will hold the same amount of people as Soarin's, and whether the show is a similar length. I would think that it should be considerably higher capacity than Soarin at least, the four simultaneously cycling theaters should also keep lines moving better without as many stops. Maybe they can at least get it somewhere in the 2000+ per hour range.
The boat we know even less about. We don't have any idea what the track layout is or how long the ride will be. Capacity dramatically varies with boat rides across property. Something extremely short like Maelstrom for instance is very low capacity, I believe stated around 900-1000 per hour. Pirates and Small World however can supposedly handle 3000+ per hour. The Land and Mexico boat rides should be considerably higher than Maelstrom at least, not sure if they're as high as Pirates and Small World. While not the same ride system (and the boats themselves don't hold as many people), Splash Mountain is also said to be fairly high capacity- somewhere between 2000-2500 per hour I believe I recall being stated on these forums.
We have basically no info whatsoever about the Avatar boat ride at this point besides a piece of art (which tells us nothing about capacity) and an outdated probably inaccurate blueprint (and also cut off a good deal of the track). Hopefully we're looking at something more similar in length to Pirates or Small World than Maelstrom, or longer.
The boat we know even less about. We don't have any idea what the track layout is or how long the ride will be. Capacity dramatically varies with boat rides across property. Something extremely short like Maelstrom for instance is very low capacity, I believe stated around 900-1000 per hour. Pirates and Small World however can supposedly handle 3000+ per hour. The Land and Mexico boat rides should be considerably higher than Maelstrom at least, not sure if they're as high as Pirates and Small World. While not the same ride system (and the boats themselves don't hold as many people), Splash Mountain is also said to be fairly high capacity- somewhere between 2000-2500 per hour I believe I recall being stated on these forums.
We have basically no info whatsoever about the Avatar boat ride at this point besides a piece of art (which tells us nothing about capacity) and an outdated probably inaccurate blueprint (and also cut off a good deal of the track). Hopefully we're looking at something more similar in length to Pirates or Small World than Maelstrom, or longer.
I'd be very surprised if these rides are not high capacity, at least the flagship Banshee ride (but I suspect the boat ride will be as well). At least 1,800 to 2,000 PPH. Disney generally does a great job ensuring that major new rides have strong capacity (and I think they learned a lesson from what happened in Carsland with the lesser capacity rides .... or one would hope.)
(And a obnoxious nit that I have to make from the good post above, but Maelstrom is low capacity because of the boat size and the dispatch interval -- those are the only variables that affect capacity, not the fact that it is extremely short. Some folks think that ride/track length has something to do with capacity, but that has nothing to do with theoretical capacity.)
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
I don't know if anything has changed in more recent times, but Mine Train is also said to have pretty poor capacity. Which I do believe all things considered. Again the Banshee ride should hopefully have considerably better capacity than Soarin. Assuming the theaters seat around the same amount of people anyways.
I'm quite sure the loading area and dispatch affected Maelstrom negatively, I never said it didn't. But having a longer ride should also have an effect as well when coupled with a better loading set up.
I'm quite sure the loading area and dispatch affected Maelstrom negatively, I never said it didn't. But having a longer ride should also have an effect as well when coupled with a better loading set up.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
For a continuously loading ride, the length has no impact of capacity. If a ride can have 10 people per vehicle and dispatches a vehicle every 30 seconds, then the capacity is 1200 people per hour. It doesn't make a difference whether it takes 5 minutes for the vehicle to get through the ride or 10 minutes, the throughput is still the same.
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
I may have confused something here in your post, but-
Then what's the deal with Peter Pan having such low capacity compared to omnimovers and other constantly moving rides? WDW's version of Pan continuously loads/unloads and doesn't stop. The speed seems approximately the same as omnimovers and individual vehicles seat about the same amount of people. Yet it has immensely lower capacity than a ride like Haunted Mansion and even Little Mermaid. Unless i'm missing something, the only major difference looks to be the length of the rides in question. HM and Mermaid are several times as long.
Unless i've got the definition of "continuously loading" messed up. Continuously loading sounds like it's describing a ride that doesn't stop and constantly loads/unloads guests while still in motion.
Pan is a very slow loading ride. While it is technically continuously loading the loading time per passenger is rather low. Conversely, the loading times on HM and Mermaid are high.
This time difference is caused by the different ride vehicles. With Pan you essentially have to climb in. No big deal for your average person, but it can be a challenge for those that are not so able body and it still takes longer regardless.
With Mermaid and HM you are plopping down in a chair which is much easier and quicker to do.
To add insult to injury the vehicle spacing is also greater on Pan.
Ultimately, the number of people that can be loaded and unloaded per hour determines the hourly capacity of the ride. The length of the ride is largely irrelevant.
For example, lets say you have a pump that will move 5 gallons per minute. No matter how long you make the pipe you still get 5 gallons per minute out of the other end.
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
The vehicle spacing I can definitely get. I didn't really notice the speed of getting inside the vehicle, felt the same as other rides. Perhaps these are things that I missed. It's climbing inside boats that is the most difficult. Big Thunder interestingly has some of the easiest to enter vehicles.
We are talking fractions of a second in most cases, but just like in Office Space and Superman 3, fractions add up.
180º
Well-Known Member
Capacity isn't just about of moving guests, it's also about containing guests. For example, if Peter Pan's Flight loaded as fast as the Haunted Mansion or Spaceship Earth, the latter two still hold far more guests at a time on their lengthy tracks. On the other hand, if the Haunted Mansion were thirty seconds long, even though it would move guests through the queue quickly, it would spit them right back out on the pathways again. About as good as a revolving door.
Using your pump metaphor, let's say that it empties into the same reservoir from which it draws. The longer the pipe, the more water it contains at any given time before it must empty it back out into the reservoir again. That's how the Magic Kingdom works. The attraction draws guests out of the pathway, alleviating crowds, but they only stay out of the pathway for as long as the attraction – queue and show – can contain them. It isn't so cut and dry, though. It's not about length specifically as much as it is about volume. Length can be a way to increase volume, but it's not the only way. A long pipe could be substituted by four pipes each measuring a quarter of the length of the long pipe. Think Mission: SPACE and its four centrifuges. The point is, whether it's one long pipe or four short ones, the more water the pipes hold, the less can be in the reservoir. But one really short pipe, even if it can move water through quickly, does not have great volume.
Peter Pan does hold a good number of guests in its queue, so in that way it is useful. However, full, high capacity queues aren't particularly fun, so the ideal attraction is a fast loader with a short wait but a high capacity show. That thinking defined EPCOT Center.
I was strictly talking about how many guests can an attraction move from start to finish in an hour and not the overall effect on the park.
At the end of the day, more guests will pass through the gates of HM and Mermaid than they will Pan if all three attractions load guests for the same amount of time.
Coaster Lover
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
And it's not like they don't have easy material to work with! Who wouldn't love a Snuggly Duckling restaurant with all the waiters dressed as ruffians and thugs? Who wouldn't want to dine at Tiana's Place with the fun pop and flair of the 20's? Even Gusteau's seems like it could be a fun and amazing restaurant... the Disney universe is full of fun and interesting chefs/restaurants/food...
Good point about the Mine Train - that's the only real misstep in terms of capacity of new "big" rides I can think of, but, in truth, that was a targeted Fantasyland ride, supposedly for a more limited, kid audience, as opposed to a true E-ticket (and it still can hit 1,500 pph!). The prototype newer E-ticket ride is Radiator Springs Racers, Everest, etc. -- i.e., all people eaters by design.
In terms of a ride's capacity, the ONLY variables that matter are (1) dispatch time and (2) capacity of the vehicle. Consider a great people eater like Pirates. Let's say it dispatches 2 boats at once per 30 seconds carrying an average 30 total people (15 per boat), just to keep the math simple. That means it dispatches 60 people per minute, with an hourly capacity of 3,600 pph (it actually hits closer to 3,000 pph in the real world, I think.) It is entirely irrelevant whether Pirates is a 1/2 mile long, 15-minute circuit with 60 boats that cycle through it OR whether it is an 100-foot long circle with just 6 boats that go in a small circle (assuming they take about 1 minute to navigate it, give or take.) So long as the dispatch interval is every 30 seconds, the capacity of the 1/2 mile circuit ride is identical to that of the 100-foot circuit. Track length and ride time have zero effect on capacity.*
Peter Pan, in contrast, has miserable capacity because its ride vehicle fits so few people -- so, no matter how quick the dispatch interval is of each vehicle (and it's pretty quick), it is necessarily limited by only holding 2 passengers, on average, per dispatch. Peter Pan would need to dispatch 15 vehicles per 30 seconds (1 every two seconds) to match Pirates' hypothetical capacity, which is obviously impossible. Hence the importance of vehicle size. That's why It's A Small World, Pirates, and Indy are such people eaters: (1) relatively quick dispatches coupled with (2) decent sized vehicles. (The interesting exceptions are Haunted House and Spaceship Earth-type rides, with continuous conveyor belt systems but small vehicles -- those are massive people eaters because of virtually no dispatch interval.)
Okay, that should have comfortably put everyone to sleep.
* (There are limited circumstances in which track length could affect dispatch interval, typically with rollercoasters that either don't have block brakes or the blocks brakes are separated by less than the maximum dispatch interval. But that is typically a non-issue with Disney coasters. For instance, it is possible to have a pretty long coaster with a relatively quick lift hill and no block brakes on the circuit, such that the train in the station has to wait until the other train has cleared the circuit (or most of the circuit, if you are using the lift hill chain as a de facto block brake), before you can dispatch the loaded train from the station. But, in those instances, that is an example of where a more lengthy track actually decreases capacity, versus the opposite. Conversely, there may be situations in which the track length is so short that it is not pragmatic to put in a block brakes, and therefore a loaded train might have to wait for dispatch until the other train clears the circuit. So, in this ways, it is possible for track length to have some indirect relationship to dispatch intervals. However, Disney has so many block brakes on its coasters like Space Mountain and Matterhorn, and even Big Thunder, that there is virtually no delay in dispatch driven by the need to clear blocks -- the rate-limiting factor is pretty much solely how quick they can load guests into the vehicle.)
In terms of a ride's capacity, the ONLY variables that matter are (1) dispatch time and (2) capacity of the vehicle. Consider a great people eater like Pirates. Let's say it dispatches 2 boats at once per 30 seconds carrying an average 30 total people (15 per boat), just to keep the math simple. That means it dispatches 60 people per minute, with an hourly capacity of 3,600 pph (it actually hits closer to 3,000 pph in the real world, I think.) It is entirely irrelevant whether Pirates is a 1/2 mile long, 15-minute circuit with 60 boats that cycle through it OR whether it is an 100-foot long circle with just 6 boats that go in a small circle (assuming they take about 1 minute to navigate it, give or take.) So long as the dispatch interval is every 30 seconds, the capacity of the 1/2 mile circuit ride is identical to that of the 100-foot circuit. Track length and ride time have zero effect on capacity.*
Peter Pan, in contrast, has miserable capacity because its ride vehicle fits so few people -- so, no matter how quick the dispatch interval is of each vehicle (and it's pretty quick), it is necessarily limited by only holding 2 passengers, on average, per dispatch. Peter Pan would need to dispatch 15 vehicles per 30 seconds (1 every two seconds) to match Pirates' hypothetical capacity, which is obviously impossible. Hence the importance of vehicle size. That's why It's A Small World, Pirates, and Indy are such people eaters: (1) relatively quick dispatches coupled with (2) decent sized vehicles. (The interesting exceptions are Haunted House and Spaceship Earth-type rides, with continuous conveyor belt systems but small vehicles -- those are massive people eaters because of virtually no dispatch interval.)
Okay, that should have comfortably put everyone to sleep.
* (There are limited circumstances in which track length could affect dispatch interval, typically with rollercoasters that either don't have block brakes or the blocks brakes are separated by less than the maximum dispatch interval. But that is typically a non-issue with Disney coasters. For instance, it is possible to have a pretty long coaster with a relatively quick lift hill and no block brakes on the circuit, such that the train in the station has to wait until the other train has cleared the circuit (or most of the circuit, if you are using the lift hill chain as a de facto block brake), before you can dispatch the loaded train from the station. But, in those instances, that is an example of where a more lengthy track actually decreases capacity, versus the opposite. Conversely, there may be situations in which the track length is so short that it is not pragmatic to put in a block brakes, and therefore a loaded train might have to wait for dispatch until the other train clears the circuit. So, in this ways, it is possible for track length to have some indirect relationship to dispatch intervals. However, Disney has so many block brakes on its coasters like Space Mountain and Matterhorn, and even Big Thunder, that there is virtually no delay in dispatch driven by the need to clear blocks -- the rate-limiting factor is pretty much solely how quick they can load guests into the vehicle.)
180º
Well-Known Member
Ah, I see. I see how that would be important when talking about a brand new attraction and how many guests can actually ride it in a single day.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
This is true, with the caveat that load/unload is the bottleneck of the attraction. If an attraction has something like a track switch (Everest, Maelstrom/Frozen Ever After, the drop on Splash), dispatch times can be more inconsistent and not necessarily the measure of throughput.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Pan's capacity isn't horrible considering the ride system. The load/unload is pretty measured and omni-mover esque but it doesn't dispatch as often as true omnimovers.
I agree, it's dispatch interval is very good considering the ride system. The fundamental problem with its capacity is the tiny ride vehicle.
HauntedMansionFLA
Well-Known Member
Is there any more information about the boat ride at all??? Did Disney go back to the drawing board to make it a true E attraction? I'm glad they gave us lots of information about the Soarin attraction but wish they would throw us a bone on the boat ride.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
you know, if they could fill the "ships" fully instead of just separating guests (seen this many times, I mean.. leaving single riders in their own ship?).. imho.. the capacity of Peter Pan would improve dramatically.
also, how hard would be if they squeezed an extra row?
HauntedMansionFLA
Well-Known Member
Hopefully both new rides have single riders line to help fill them all the way up.