DHS Soundstage 1 Renovation - Toy Storia Mania expansion

[RSoxNo1]

The people working the ride also need to figure out how to load people on better. Last week, I went on the ride as a single rider. I was the only person in my car. By car, I mean the 8 person max (4x2). How can you not find 6 other people? I also have no problem sitting next to a random person.

They don't do single riders on the attraction. When it first opened they did, but they eliminated it. Also, the addition of the air gates early on in the attraction's life reduced capacity as well.

 

[RSoxNo1]

At first, I questioned the logic of spending money on expanding old rides when the park was so sorely in need of a higher ride count. However, the more I learn about the DHS situation, I feel it is clear that both are needed.

I really couldn't believe that TSMM had a hourly throughput of around 900 people per hour. Regardless of any additional attractions, 900 peeps per hour is just too low for how popular and how repeatable the ride is. Even 1350 isn't the best, but it is still a 33% improvement.

If the additions to the park are as grand in scope as we believe they are, this additional track may only keep the wait times equal to what they are now, due to the additional guest interest the overall park expansion creates.

I'm guessing the number is in the 1000-1200 range.

 

[TubaGeek]

Adding a third track is cheap and lazy compared to designing and constructing a new ride to handle some of the demand. Pure and simple.

Oh, and the Jack Sparrow attraction was the worst attraction at WDW and Uni combined. Don't take a PG-13 franchise and give it a Dora the Explorer style show.

 

[ISTCPilot1989]

They don't do single riders on the attraction. When it first opened they did, but they eliminated it. Also, the addition of the air gates early on in the attraction's life reduced capacity as well.

I know that. I'm saying I went through the line, and put just me in a car that fits 8 people. That's insane!

 

[PorterRedkey]

I'm guessing the number is in the 1000-1200 range.

Is that with or without the additional track?

I got the 900 number for the current OHRC (Operational Hourly Ride Capacity) from the site below. The site has the theoretical max capacity at 1000 per hour.

https://crooksinwdw.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/theoreticaloperational-hourly-ride-capacity-at-wdw/

 

[RSoxNo1]

Adding a third track is cheap and lazy compared to designing and constructing a new ride to handle some of the demand. Pure and simple.

Oh, and the Jack Sparrow attraction was the worst attraction at WDW and Uni combined. Don't take a PG-13 franchise and give it a Dora the Explorer style show.

This is not an either/or option. They are doing both, they can just bring this online sooner.

If @WDW1974's latest information is to believed, Star Wars content may emerge prior to 2021, but in all likelihood D/E-tickets are 2-4 years away. We know the 3rd track is coming in 2016, and it is likely that Toy Story Playland (B-tickets) is coming in 2017.

Yes, they should have 5 more rides in the park already, but they don't. In a park that gets 10 million guests a year (roughly 27,400 a day), a ride that all guests can experience that less than half of those guests can actually ride is a problem. Toy Story Mania and Soarin' were underbuilt capacity wise. This addresses it, and it's a good thing.

 

[RSoxNo1]

I know that. I'm saying I went through the line, and put just me in a car that fits 8 people. That's insane!

Yeah, that's stupid. Was this during the Fastpass+ only test?

 

[RSoxNo1]

Is that with or without the additional track?

I got the 900 number for the current OHRC (Operational Hourly Ride Capacity) from the site below. The site has the theoretical max capacity at 1000 per hour.

https://crooksinwdw.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/theoreticaloperational-hourly-ride-capacity-at-wdw/

I know definitively that some of the numbers on his site are wrong. I've checked my numbers against it on a few different occasions. I've got 1100-1200 on my site. I was told back in 2010 that when they first came back from the air gate refurb they were averaging around 800 guests per hour compared to 1200-1300 before. My understanding is that they're regularly in the 1100-1200 range now.

 

[ULPO46]

I know definitively that some of the numbers on his site are wrong. I've checked my numbers against it on a few different occasions. I've got 1100-1200 on my site. I was told back in 2010 that when they first came back from the air gate refurb they were averaging around 800 guests per hour compared to 1200-1300 before. My understanding is that they're regularly in the 1100-1200 range now.

You are right. It just depends on how fast the castmembers can get it done safely and efficiently. But it is DHS's most popular attraction so even on off days, thats the average.

 

[doctornick]

I know definitively that some of the numbers on his site are wrong. I've checked my numbers against it on a few different occasions. I've got 1100-1200 on my site. I was told back in 2010 that when they first came back from the air gate refurb they were averaging around 800 guests per hour compared to 1200-1300 before. My understanding is that they're regularly in the 1100-1200 range now.

Buzz at 800/hr seems completely wrong. How could a continuously loading omnimover be that low? Haunted Mansion is 3200/hr.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Buzz at 800/hr seems completely wrong. How could a continuously loading omnimover be that low? Haunted Mansion is 3200/hr.

If that came from their site it's one of a few examples of bad info. The exact capacity numbers aren't publicly available in most cases, but sometimes an operation manual gets out or a CM with knowledge of the ride puts the info out there. I've tried to accumulate that information when I see it.

 

[JediMasterMatt]

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Using 2011 and 2013 as the times around the 2012 RSR debut, TSMM wait times averaged ~3 minutes lower after RSR opened. My stats guy says that's not statistically significant over the course of an entire year though.

Here's the chart:

Sure. And it's quite possible/likely that a similar phenomena would occur at DHS if additional rides are added -- rather than cause wait times to go down at TSMM, the additional guests (or guests that stay longer in the park) might keep the wait times similar. In which case, you are back to the capacity issue, which is what the third track is trying to solve.

You're also comparing very different environments with multiple variables.. and drawing conclusions about one of them. That is horribly wrong.

For starters...
DCA isn't strapped for attraction capacity... DHS is
DCA isn't strapped for the kid demographic... DHS is
DCA's TSMM was not extremely overloaded (high waits)... DHS is.
Carsland significantly boosted overall park attendance - that means you need to account for that increased load
Attractions are not necessarily equal for demand pull - especially if they require significantly more investment. Ex: RSR is a 60+min wait regularlly.. TSMM was 30-40min typically. Takes more 'investment' to goto RSR instead of TSMM.. that eats at how much canabalizing of demand there is too.

DCA was quite balanced - DHS (still) is not.

The uptake on available capacity is is not necessarily a linear function. The further you get into deficits for supply, the more desperate people will get and tolerate more waits. The more surplus there is, the tolerance for wait will not track linearly with supply necessarily.

It's nice to say 'if there is a new attraction eating 1200/hr - that will reduce the count waiting on other attractions by that much' - but the world isn't that pristine and pure. But what we do know is DHS is in a severe deficit of desirable attractions for people.. so if you add something compatible, and desirable, it should help siphon load off.

People do not like to wait for attractions at 100+mins.. when normally the expectation is more like 15-30mins. That is an additional variable that would make it easier for people to float to an alternative attraction if it were compatible and desirable.

The comparison between TSMM on both coasts is an interesting one. Using it as an example is a very valid metric that can be applied to both understanding the parks (and the resorts they are in) on each coast.

For this discussion, we will use the word "popular" to define attractions that can pull guests into line for it.

When discussing either coast, you need to get the obvious facts off the table. TSMM is "popular" because it is a fun, interactive, attraction. In Disney parlance - a solid D+ to E ticket attraction. It's interactive, it's competitive, and that translates into being fun.

When you discuss "popularity" or lines at theme parks, you are really having a discussion of supply vs. demand. A lot of this discussion in this thread has been focused on the supply part - which is the "pph (people per hour)" function of the attraction.

TSMM is also an attraction that provides very marginal hourly capacity by Disney standards (800 - 1200pph).

Demand is the part of the discussion where the real heart of the matter is.

Demand for TSMM is different on either coast.

TSMM at DCA is a metric of a "popular" attraction at a now healthy park.

TSMM at DHS is a metric of a "popular" attraction at a very sick park.

The demand part of the equation in determining "popularity" aka length of lines is really determined by factoring all the other alternatives that the park the attraction is in has to offer. Think of the real sum of an attraction's popularity as being something as vain as a popularity contest. Attractions vie for a guests attention the moment they step through the gate. What determines the length of the line for a specific attraction is how many guests opt to get in line (physically or virtually) over every other attraction that is available.

TSMM at DCA has a plethora of "worthy" attractions that pull guests away from it.

TSMM at DHS has next to nothing to serve as the pull.

This "pull" is the proverbial magnetism attractions have over guest decision making.

Using the attached graph for DCA TSMM's wait times before and after RSR came online shouldn't be a surprise. TSMM had the same amount of pull on guest behavior as it did before even though overall park attendance went up. It's important to note, that DCA's redo was really to effect the "popularity" of the overall park. It was designed to serve as the magnetic pull to draw guests away from DL and hold them at DCA. The increase in attendance has been absorbed by the growth that Carsland/Mermaid/and WoC added.

If you understand how attractions pull guests into its lines and the impact that has not only to the health of a park; but, the overall resort - then TDO's move of adding a 3rd track to TSMM at DHS at this point in time is disturbing.

The "pull" will likely remain the same.

The current issue at DHS isn't that TSMM is pulling guests into its line over ToT, RnRC, or ST. The current issue is what guests are pulled to AFTER they complete those attractions.

That pull will still likely mean hopping over to another park and that means likely hopping to MK.

The "unhealthy" nature of DHS isn't that TSMM is "popular". The unhealthy nature is that DHS can't keep people occupied for an entire day.

Allowing 1/3 more guests to notch their belts with a TSMM ride quicker will do nothing more than add to the overall problems with the resort. Until TDO recognizes that the solution to this problem is to bring enough compelling attractions online to keep guests satisfied at the current park they visit, then the grass (artificial as it may be at the Hub) will always be greener on the other side of the imaginary Magic Band gates.

The real benefit of a 3rd TSMM track won't be felt until DHS has enough online to keep guest happy for an entire day. If Star Wars Land comes and doesn't bring enough native capacity on its own to offset the increase in attendance, it will be very messy.

 

[TubaGeek]

This is not an either/or option. They are doing both, they can just bring this online sooner.

If @WDW1974's latest information is to believed, Star Wars content may emerge prior to 2021, but in all likelihood D/E-tickets are 2-4 years away. We know the 3rd track is coming in 2016, and it is likely that Toy Story Playland (B-tickets) is coming in 2017.

Yes, they should have 5 more rides in the park already, but they don't. In a park that gets 10 million guests a year (roughly 27,400 a day), a ride that all guests can experience that less than half of those guests can actually ride is a problem. Toy Story Mania and Soarin' were underbuilt capacity wise. This addresses it, and it's a good thing.

I'd be much more optimistic if they built with any sort of experiency. It's offensive how long it takes TDO to build anything.

 

[CJR]

Allowing 1/3 more guests to notch their belts with a TSMM ride quicker will do nothing more than add to the overall problems with the resort. Until TDO recognizes that the solution to this problem is to bring enough compelling attractions online to keep guests satisfied at the current park they visit, then the grass (artificial as it may be at the Hub) will always be greener on the other side of the imaginary Magic Band gates.

That's my thoughts as well. I don't think these people are going to spend more time in DHS gift shops. They'll finish their list of things to do at DHS and hop over to MK or Epcot. It'll shorten the wait for TSMM and make the other lines longer if nothing new is added to absorb the guest's new free time. Basically, people will just spend even less time at DHS until something bigger comes.

 

[flynnibus]

Do you for one second think that adding a 3rd track will be less effective at decreasing the wait time than adding 3 new attractions?

Know what would also cut down on the line? Simply letting less people in the park... oh wait.. you mean I can't look at the wait time in complete isolation as the only metric that matters???

Reducing the TSMM wait time will not make the park more successful on its own. So yes, adding more capacity to the ride will help reduce waits.. no doubt... but what does that really do for us in the larger picture? It helps take away one customer pain point at a park with MUCH greater problems. So is it the best way to spend limited budget?? Debatable.

They need to do both, but the 3rd track is absolutely necessary.

This comment is actually completely independent of your prior one. Just because doing something can be accepted as effective - does not make it NECESSARY. We can agree that guns are very effective at killing people - that doesn't mean you agree on their necessity.

What is a necessity is addressing the customer sat issue of having incredibly long lines. But if you actually roll that up into the necessity of 'fixing the park' - which solutions you pick will start to diverge vs simply trying to bandaide things.

To put it to the extreme... would it make sense to take out even more of the park to make TSMM 5x bigger so the waits are minimal? Eventually you face the reality is 'more TSMM' isn't what people want... they simply want reasonable wait times. More than one way to skin that cat...

 

[PorterRedkey]

I know definitively that some of the numbers on his site are wrong. I've checked my numbers against it on a few different occasions. I've got 1100-1200 on my site. I was told back in 2010 that when they first came back from the air gate refurb they were averaging around 800 guests per hour compared to 1200-1300 before. My understanding is that they're regularly in the 1100-1200 range now.

Thanks for the updated numbers! I think my point remains valid. It will be nice to see capacity up towards 1700 once the new track opens... in a year and a half.

 

[PorterRedkey]

@RSoxNo1 is your site WDW Fan Boys?

 

[flynnibus]

For this discussion, we will use the word "popular" to define attractions that can pull guests into line for it.
.

A mathmatical way to describe it would be..

An attraction has a DRAW or appeal. This is how interesting the attraction is to a guest. This is relatively stable, and independent of park conditions. An attraction's draw could be considered a constant... (and better attractions maintain that value over time.. wihle less repeatable or dated ones may lose it faster).

An attraction has a fixed CAPACITY for processing guest / unit of time (ignoring operational variations).

Then there is the Demand for an attraction. Unlike the 'draw', the demand is not a constant, but actually a function of the current conditions in the park. Simplest example... The greater the crowd level in the park.. the greater the demand load. The availability of the attraction vs others... will impact the demand load. Demand is very time specific, and can be shaped by park activities, customer situations, and the current demand itself (feedback loop).

The attraction has a fixed capacity (ignoring operational variations) for which to process that demand load. When demand exceeds capacity... a line forms and grows. When demand load falls under the capacity / time... lines shrink.

The wait for an attraction is a function of the demand and capacity (ignoring constants like cycle times, built in waits due to preshows, etc). The demand has feedback components because of the human decisions over tolerance for wait, amount of investment, etc. As the demand increases, it overwhelms supply, longer waits results, and the feedback loop kicks in tempering new demand. A natural equilibrium for a given park load starts to form based on the attractions DRAW, CAPACITY, and DEMAND. This is why statisticians can try to model wait times based on expected crowd loads. The demand is the that is where all the variables truly are.

And in the case of DCA vs DHS... its why the same attraction can maintain very different equilibrium points in the normal wait time. The attraction in DHS isn't more fun.. and guests aren't that different in their desires... so the DRAW is basically the same. Capacity is also still fixed. But due to the LACK of other activities suitable for the guests... the DEMAND load is much higher.. and the tolerance for waiting (in the feedback loop) is heavily influenced by the same lack of alternatives.

Someone's tolerance for waiting will be significantly higher when there are less alternatives. If this is "the only time I can see this act" - your tolerance for pain to see it will climb. And hence, the Demand load will also increase..

One could write all this out in basic linear algebra - but most people wouldn't gain from the insight anyways

 

[RSoxNo1]

Know what would also cut down on the line? Simply letting less people in the park... oh wait.. you mean I can't look at the wait time in complete isolation as the only metric that matters???

Reducing the TSMM wait time will not make the park more successful on its own. So yes, adding more capacity to the ride will help reduce waits.. no doubt... but what does that really do for us in the larger picture? It helps take away one customer pain point at a park with MUCH greater problems. So is it the best way to spend limited budget?? Debatable.



This comment is actually completely independent of your prior one. Just because doing something can be accepted as effective - does not make it NECESSARY. We can agree that guns are very effective at killing people - that doesn't mean you agree on their necessity.

What is a necessity is addressing the customer sat issue of having incredibly long lines. But if you actually roll that up into the necessity of 'fixing the park' - which solutions you pick will start to diverge vs simply trying to bandaide things.

To put it to the extreme... would it make sense to take out even more of the park to make TSMM 5x bigger so the waits are minimal? Eventually you face the reality is 'more TSMM' isn't what people want... they simply want reasonable wait times. More than one way to skin that cat...

Toy Story Mania is a ride that people are unable to experience because of the wait times. As such, adding capacity solves that problem. Coming up with hypotheticals like further limiting the people in the park are ridiculous. This is a bandaid on the park, but a solution to the Toy Story Mania crowd problem.

 

[flynnibus]

Toy Story Mania is a ride that people are unable to experience because of the wait times. As such, adding capacity solves that problem. Coming up with hypotheticals like further limiting the people in the park are ridiculous. This is a bandaid on the park, but a solution to the Toy Story Mania crowd problem.

Reducing people in the park is not a hypothethical - it illustrates how just watching one dimension (wait time) in a vacuum is not meaningful and doesn't actually indicate if the change value or a good solution. There are other dimensions of importance.

I doubt there are many people disenfranchised from experiencing TSMM. People prioritize it and people wait for it.. if they didn't, the wait times wouldn't be so high. Are people able to do it many times a day? No.. but again, 'more TSMM' isn't going to alter the park significantly and certainly isn't going to do much except for address one customer sat issue in isolation. It's a situation caused by bad behavior elsewhere.. and the 'fix' just continues to ignore the bad behavior.