Large Piece Falls off Monorail - Being Evacuated

[nace888]

The use of 3 exclamation points on the title is enough to make pandas cry, then to add the portrait orientation of the video just adds crying baby seals to the mix.

LOL

 

[ford91exploder]

No, because some here work in 24/7 maintenance intensive industries and have spent years keeping operations running at 85+% uptime. We have seen how maintenance deficiencies lead to people getting killed.

So when we look at the performance of the monorail as a system, we can see the maintenance system is horribly mismanaged.

And some of us work in other industries where %99.999 availability is the standard.

Described as

• Daily: 0.9s
• Weekly: 6.0s
• Monthly: 26.3s
• Yearly: 5m 15.6s

It's not rocket science to get and stay there it requires spending money and good operational discipline and it does not mean that every element of the service is at that level of reliability just that the public facing side of the service has that kind of availability. and it usually consists of a combination of public and private clouds.

 

[righttrack]

Because a lot of the components for monorails are manufactured on-site (concrete, etc), the mean time before failure analyses are meaningless. I mean, how long can the rails last? Does anyone really know? It's not like there are 1,000s of these exact things everywhere. I think this is a problem Disney faces whenever they build something, versus buy something.

 

[RustySpork]

And some of us work in other industries where %99.999 availability is the standard.

Described as

• Daily: 0.9s
• Weekly: 6.0s
• Monthly: 26.3s
• Yearly: 5m 15.6s

It's not rocket science to get and stay there it requires spending money and good operational discipline and it does not mean that every element of the service is at that level of reliability just that the public facing side of the service has that kind of availability. and it usually consists of a combination of public and private clouds.

That cost to go from 99.99% to 99.999% though.

 

[larryz]

Because a lot of the components for monorails are manufactured on-site (concrete, etc), the mean time before failure analyses are meaningless. I mean, how long can the rails last? Does anyone really know? It's not like there are 1,000s of these exact things everywhere. I think this is a problem Disney faces whenever they build something, versus buy something.

Well, I know where there's another set of rails that are 20-something years older...

 

[Horizons78]

Because a lot of the components for monorails are manufactured on-site (concrete, etc), the mean time before failure analyses are meaningless. I mean, how long can the rails last? Does anyone really know? It's not like there are 1,000s of these exact things everywhere. I think this is a problem Disney faces whenever they build something, versus buy something.

The MK beams weren't cast onsite - they were manufactured in Washington state and trucked in. The Epcot beams were manufactured onsite using the same target specs. Whether there is any significant quality deviation between the two would be something for someone like @marni1971 to chime in on. I've heard yes and no over the years.

They are stressed concrete beams, and plenty is known regarding the expected life of other such structures - there has to be a end of life date that they have in mind for them.

 

[Nubs70]

Well, I know where there's another set of rails that are 20-something years older...

Yes, replacement parts on hand.

 

[ford91exploder]

That cost to go from 99.99% to 99.999% though.

Yup it ain't cheap but it's required these days and the old 'Bell System' where this originated had it down to a science

 

[Nubs70]

Because a lot of the components for monorails are manufactured on-site (concrete, etc), the mean time before failure analyses are meaningless. I mean, how long can the rails last? Does anyone really know? It's not like there are 1,000s of these exact things everywhere. I think this is a problem Disney faces whenever they build something, versus buy something.

So you identify components with long lead times and have replacements on site.

 

[ford91exploder]

Well, I know where there's another set of rails that are 20-something years older...

There is another one in the Nevada Desert which runs 24x7 and does not seem to have the issues which plague the one in Orlando. Preventative maintenance and spare parts has absolutely no effect on system reliability...

 

[ford91exploder]

So you identify components with long lead times and have replacements on site.

Like WDW USED to do pre Iger and The Costcutters, But that kind of sparing is looked down upon because what could be CASH has it's VALUE locked up in a depreciating fixed asset.

 

[Brad Bishop]

The MK beams weren't cast onsite - they were manufactured in Washington state and trucked in. The Epcot beams were manufactured onsite using the same target specs. Whether there is any significant quality deviation between the two would be something for someone like @marni1971 to chime in on. I've heard yes and no over the years.

They are stressed concrete beams, and plenty is known regarding the expected life of other such structures - there has to be a end of life date that they have in mind for them.

I remember reading a while back, and I forget where, that the MK beams which, as you said, were cast in Washington state and shipped down via rail road, are of a higher quality than the Epcot beam which was cast in FL.

I think one of the primary differences was just the source of materials used. When they made the Epcot beam they were using limestone from FL because, that's what was there. As such, they are of lesser grade than what was built in Washington which either didn't use limestone at all or didn't use as much of it.

I think if you look at the beams themselves you can see that the Epcot beam has many more parts that have been chipped away, and repaired over time, compared with the MK beams which are a decade older.

Realistically, it's concrete and, while durable and while it should last many years, there's a point where it erodes away and has to be replaced. You see this is bridges where the concrete has chipped away over time and, eventually, they have to replace it.

The Disneyland beam has another decade on the MK beams and it seems to be doing fine so far, which is good.

Eventually there's going to be a point where they have to replace the beams due to structural fatigue and normal wear and tear. I don't know when that is but based on what I've read I'd guess that the Epcot (youngest) beams would need it first. At that point I'd think that they'd inspect the the overall structure (pylons, base, and piles) and they'd have to make a call as to what to do and part of that call is going to be based on prior maintenance and management.

You could see this happen with 20,000 Leagues at the MK. Management didn't want to deal with it so, again, from what I've read, they let maintenance lag on it to the point where it was constantly having problems and when the suits came in they had all the documentation they needed to say, "See! It's too much of a hassle. Let's get rid of it." So the suits said, "Yeah... You're right." Conversely, had they properly maintained it you wouldn't have had that argument and even if you wanted to get rid of it the suits would have said, "It's a working ride that gives people something to do. Don't shut it down."

Apply that to the Monorail and think of it in terms of the next generation of managers who are left with the results of this generation's (and previous, to be fair) decisions and you start having an interesting conversation. Let's say 15 years out (they'd be about 50 years old - which isn't too much off from when bridges are replaced) that the Epcot beam, due to its on-site construction, is in pretty bad shape. You're a manager. The trains have been maintained at a sub par level (they look a bit rough), new maintenance bays were never built, and you still have the same number or trains or maybe one got damaged somewhere in there and it's mostly just used for parts now.. ...and you want that bonus.

Do you:
A) Refurb/rebuilt the Epcot line, taking on all the costs associated with it including replacing pylons/pilings and rebuild the trains, buy more trains, and maybe even build another maintenance bay while you're at it because it'd look silly to run old / dirty / beaten trains on what amounts to a new beam.
B) Think: Buses are way cheaper than rebuilding the monorail beam + dealing with the trains. We still have the MK lines so we still have that "I want to ride the Monorail"-flair. If we just demolish the Epcot line we're immediately saving money AND it frees up trains to be rebuilt and cycled through with no new maintenance bays needed and no new trains needed. We're just paying to remove the beams and pylons - the base and piling can stay put and will just put dirt and grass over them. Given a few years people will only remember the monorail in picture and won't think about it while walking around Epcot. Also, I get a bonus!

I don't want it to happen, but I could certainly see it happening. It's painfully clear that they don't want to, nor does it make a lot of sense to, build the monorail system out. It's not going to happen. While they have been investing in the automation system, it appears as though the overall maintenance for the current fleet has been allowed to languish. You can argue, "Well, we don't KNOW their maintenance schedule or routines!" Ok. We do know that the monorails have more breakdowns today than in the past, they certainly don't advertise 99.8% uptime like they used to, and they're not looking their greatest.

When faced with a decaying/failing system, even if just part of that system, which one sounds like the likely decision?

I could even see them putting the spin on it of, "...Well, it was 1960s technology which is not for the new age of the 2030s..."

I think the management conversation about the monorail is a completely different conversation than one they'd have about Pirates or Haunted Mansion. They keep those rides up. They keep them going. They refurb them. They're all in on those. They really don't appear to be all-in on the monorail.

 

[ABQ]

I'm no physicist or structural engineer and your long post deserves, and hopefully gets, a more educated response @Brad Bishop . However, I have to think that friction is what causes a great deal of wear on a concrete road surface. On the controlled monorail loops, provided things are working as planned, the only contact to the concrete are the load wheels (vertical) and guide wheels (opposing horizontal) of the monorail. If each is pressurized correctly, given the slow rates at which the monorail accelerates and decelerates, I'd guess the friction is minimal. Typical public roads made of concrete have who knows what slamming against them outside of tires to cause chipping and wear as well as occasional frost heaves from below the surface. This, my uneducated assumption, makes me think would allow for much longer life of the monorail beams.

 

[KeithVH]

Can anyone confirm that there's actual spalling occurring on any of the World beams? That, to me, would be a huge indicator of potential near future issues. Especially in that climate.

 

[Figment2005]

The MK beams weren't cast onsite - they were manufactured in Washington state and trucked in. The Epcot beams were manufactured onsite using the same target specs. Whether there is any significant quality deviation between the two would be something for someone like @marni1971 to chime in on. I've heard yes and no over the years.

They are stressed concrete beams, and plenty is known regarding the expected life of other such structures - there has to be a end of life date that they have in mind for them.

Riding on the Epcot beam makes it obvious about the differences. The MK lines cured in a controlled environment before being shipped, while the Epcot line was cured outside and placed. It isn't as straight or smooth as the MK line. The beams in the shop are actually curved upward because they put the trains on them before they were 100% cured.

 

[Figment2005]

I remember reading a while back, and I forget where, that the MK beams which, as you said, were cast in Washington state and shipped down via rail road, are of a higher quality than the Epcot beam which was cast in FL.

I think one of the primary differences was just the source of materials used. When they made the Epcot beam they were using limestone from FL because, that's what was there. As such, they are of lesser grade than what was built in Washington which either didn't use limestone at all or didn't use as much of it.

I think if you look at the beams themselves you can see that the Epcot beam has many more parts that have been chipped away, and repaired over time, compared with the MK beams which are a decade older.

Realistically, it's concrete and, while durable and while it should last many years, there's a point where it erodes away and has to be replaced. You see this is bridges where the concrete has chipped away over time and, eventually, they have to replace it.

The Disneyland beam has another decade on the MK beams and it seems to be doing fine so far, which is good.

Eventually there's going to be a point where they have to replace the beams due to structural fatigue and normal wear and tear. I don't know when that is but based on what I've read I'd guess that the Epcot (youngest) beams would need it first. At that point I'd think that they'd inspect the the overall structure (pylons, base, and piles) and they'd have to make a call as to what to do and part of that call is going to be based on prior maintenance and management.

You could see this happen with 20,000 Leagues at the MK. Management didn't want to deal with it so, again, from what I've read, they let maintenance lag on it to the point where it was constantly having problems and when the suits came in they had all the documentation they needed to say, "See! It's too much of a hassle. Let's get rid of it." So the suits said, "Yeah... You're right." Conversely, had they properly maintained it you wouldn't have had that argument and even if you wanted to get rid of it the suits would have said, "It's a working ride that gives people something to do. Don't shut it down."

Apply that to the Monorail and think of it in terms of the next generation of managers who are left with the results of this generation's (and previous, to be fair) decisions and you start having an interesting conversation. Let's say 15 years out (they'd be about 50 years old - which isn't too much off from when bridges are replaced) that the Epcot beam, due to its on-site construction, is in pretty bad shape. You're a manager. The trains have been maintained at a sub par level (they look a bit rough), new maintenance bays were never built, and you still have the same number or trains or maybe one got damaged somewhere in there and it's mostly just used for parts now.. ...and you want that bonus.

Do you:
A) Refurb/rebuilt the Epcot line, taking on all the costs associated with it including replacing pylons/pilings and rebuild the trains, buy more trains, and maybe even build another maintenance bay while you're at it because it'd look silly to run old / dirty / beaten trains on what amounts to a new beam.
B) Think: Buses are way cheaper than rebuilding the monorail beam + dealing with the trains. We still have the MK lines so we still have that "I want to ride the Monorail"-flair. If we just demolish the Epcot line we're immediately saving money AND it frees up trains to be rebuilt and cycled through with no new maintenance bays needed and no new trains needed. We're just paying to remove the beams and pylons - the base and piling can stay put and will just put dirt and grass over them. Given a few years people will only remember the monorail in picture and won't think about it while walking around Epcot. Also, I get a bonus!

I don't want it to happen, but I could certainly see it happening. It's painfully clear that they don't want to, nor does it make a lot of sense to, build the monorail system out. It's not going to happen. While they have been investing in the automation system, it appears as though the overall maintenance for the current fleet has been allowed to languish. You can argue, "Well, we don't KNOW their maintenance schedule or routines!" Ok. We do know that the monorails have more breakdowns today than in the past, they certainly don't advertise 99.8% uptime like they used to, and they're not looking their greatest.

When faced with a decaying/failing system, even if just part of that system, which one sounds like the likely decision?

I could even see them putting the spin on it of, "...Well, it was 1960s technology which is not for the new age of the 2030s..."

I think the management conversation about the monorail is a completely different conversation than one they'd have about Pirates or Haunted Mansion. They keep those rides up. They keep them going. They refurb them. They're all in on those. They really don't appear to be all-in on the monorail.

The primary reason there are so many patched on the Epcot beam is because of the limestone base. The trains drip water from their A/C units and that water over time will wear away at the beam. If you look close at the beams while in the station you will notice specific points where patches are located. That is where the train is dripping while it is being loaded, therefor more erosion on the beam.

 

[BlindChow]

Are you a Disney blogger?

Yes, I am.

[Me, if I was there]: And you're holding your phone in portrait mode?

So it's not Disney (but they do look like Muppets!), but I think people might get a kick out of this...
(also they mention Star Wars)

 

[Cesar R M]

Yeah it was later discovered they had switched to a cheaper rope that was too elastic which contributed to the accident. They received a fine for using the wrong type of rope.

In any case the point was many people have come into this thread stating something to the affect that the whole idea that Disney would cut costs leading to a tragic disaster is crazy because it would cost more in the long run. While the truth is they've done that very thing many times.

Funnily, there has been many stories of AIRLINES refusing to pay expensive repairs or defective airplane because it costs cheaper to pay VICTIMS than fixing all their fleet.

Similar to the Auto industry. Before the media frenzy and social media power. They preferred to pay the victims money instead of recalling car fleets for defects.

 

[Cesar R M]

It's hard to imagine my day without WDWmagic. I don't know what else I'd do. I'd probably have to go be productive or something.

*shudder*

What is this "productive" thing? I dont remember anything about it since I joined WDWmagic.

 

[ford91exploder]

I remember reading a while back, and I forget where, that the MK beams which, as you said, were cast in Washington state and shipped down via rail road, are of a higher quality than the Epcot beam which was cast in FL.

I think one of the primary differences was just the source of materials used. When they made the Epcot beam they were using limestone from FL because, that's what was there. As such, they are of lesser grade than what was built in Washington which either didn't use limestone at all or didn't use as much of it.

I think if you look at the beams themselves you can see that the Epcot beam has many more parts that have been chipped away, and repaired over time, compared with the MK beams which are a decade older.

Realistically, it's concrete and, while durable and while it should last many years, there's a point where it erodes away and has to be replaced. You see this is bridges where the concrete has chipped away over time and, eventually, they have to replace it.

The Disneyland beam has another decade on the MK beams and it seems to be doing fine so far, which is good.

Eventually there's going to be a point where they have to replace the beams due to structural fatigue and normal wear and tear. I don't know when that is but based on what I've read I'd guess that the Epcot (youngest) beams would need it first. At that point I'd think that they'd inspect the the overall structure (pylons, base, and piles) and they'd have to make a call as to what to do and part of that call is going to be based on prior maintenance and management.

You could see this happen with 20,000 Leagues at the MK. Management didn't want to deal with it so, again, from what I've read, they let maintenance lag on it to the point where it was constantly having problems and when the suits came in they had all the documentation they needed to say, "See! It's too much of a hassle. Let's get rid of it." So the suits said, "Yeah... You're right." Conversely, had they properly maintained it you wouldn't have had that argument and even if you wanted to get rid of it the suits would have said, "It's a working ride that gives people something to do. Don't shut it down."

Apply that to the Monorail and think of it in terms of the next generation of managers who are left with the results of this generation's (and previous, to be fair) decisions and you start having an interesting conversation. Let's say 15 years out (they'd be about 50 years old - which isn't too much off from when bridges are replaced) that the Epcot beam, due to its on-site construction, is in pretty bad shape. You're a manager. The trains have been maintained at a sub par level (they look a bit rough), new maintenance bays were never built, and you still have the same number or trains or maybe one got damaged somewhere in there and it's mostly just used for parts now.. ...and you want that bonus.

Do you:
A) Refurb/rebuilt the Epcot line, taking on all the costs associated with it including replacing pylons/pilings and rebuild the trains, buy more trains, and maybe even build another maintenance bay while you're at it because it'd look silly to run old / dirty / beaten trains on what amounts to a new beam.
B) Think: Buses are way cheaper than rebuilding the monorail beam + dealing with the trains. We still have the MK lines so we still have that "I want to ride the Monorail"-flair. If we just demolish the Epcot line we're immediately saving money AND it frees up trains to be rebuilt and cycled through with no new maintenance bays needed and no new trains needed. We're just paying to remove the beams and pylons - the base and piling can stay put and will just put dirt and grass over them. Given a few years people will only remember the monorail in picture and won't think about it while walking around Epcot. Also, I get a bonus!

I don't want it to happen, but I could certainly see it happening. It's painfully clear that they don't want to, nor does it make a lot of sense to, build the monorail system out. It's not going to happen. While they have been investing in the automation system, it appears as though the overall maintenance for the current fleet has been allowed to languish. You can argue, "Well, we don't KNOW their maintenance schedule or routines!" Ok. We do know that the monorails have more breakdowns today than in the past, they certainly don't advertise 99.8% uptime like they used to, and they're not looking their greatest.

When faced with a decaying/failing system, even if just part of that system, which one sounds like the likely decision?

I could even see them putting the spin on it of, "...Well, it was 1960s technology which is not for the new age of the 2030s..."

I think the management conversation about the monorail is a completely different conversation than one they'd have about Pirates or Haunted Mansion. They keep those rides up. They keep them going. They refurb them. They're all in on those. They really don't appear to be all-in on the monorail.

Anyone with a management role in a public company in the US knows the answer to your question is B.

Mainly because the monorail does not directly drive revenue.

It's iconic but that and 5 bucks buys a Starbucks beverage for said manager