-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Management about to change Expedition Everest
- Thread starter EpcotServo
- Start date
hokielutz
Well-Known Member
I too am genuinely concerned about show quality. But I can't pass judgement about whether adding a 5th train will cause problems. From what I have read... the ride was designed to run 5 trains at once for maximum capacity. This is not a matter of taking a ride designed for 4 trains and re-engineering it for 5.
Is there a possibility for backups in the system? Sure. If someone get's stuck trying to get out or takes forever to get into the train... there could be cascading e-stops.
I am just going to put the trust in the Park managers to make the right call, based on the technical and observation data they have. And if they make the switch and problems are encountered, then I will trust they will revert back to the original configuration.
To be quite honest... the regular queue moves very quickly already. All the times I've been on it... the queue waits were grossly overstated.
Tim G
Well-Known Member
These things are not decided by the Park Managers... they just send in a complaint / question to Walt disney Imagineering... They decide going cascade or not...
Still doubt if it's the right thing to do with all that cascading...
Drats! You've found out my evil agenda to...Well, I don't know what it was, but I sure had one! Good job!
You got one thing right though...I am nutty! I love Everest, and I have no crazy, anti-Disney agenda. I was just reporting the news, and since I know alot about how the ride works, stating my views against the idea, and the problems with this idea that I've heard. And now you know, and learning is half the battle!
G.I. JOE!
MythBuster
Active Member
But it does come out of the Operations budget, so they decide if they want to spend that money to make changes
JML42691
Active Member
In other threads SixFlags gets slammed for running too few trains becasue they have the capability to do it without changing the experience of the ride. Expedition Everest is currently running under the (near-)max capacity of trains when running four trains. Below I have reposted a link that I included ealier (so nobody has to go back a few pages to find it) that shows what could happen "somewhat" frequently if five trains are added. In the video the train gets stuck in an incident of "stacking" (when trains get backed up at a block brake unit while waiting for the next unit to be cleared) on opening day. This most likely happened when a disabled passanger was loading/unloading a train and delayed the train's dispatch from the zone. This can be expected to happen more often when a fifth train is added and what happens when the trains stacks is the final yeti-scene loses its effect as the train is slowed and misses the yeti's arm swinging. Another argument is that the ride will not add enough more fastpasses as intended by adding the fifth train. And some extensive reprogramming of the ride's controls would be nesessary to prevent the trains from stacking. You are saying that they have plenty of room to add trains when they do not really. The only "extra" brake section available now is the one before the final yeti scene which as it can be seen from the video, it should not be used at all.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1175636594795785932&q=expedition+everest&hl=en
Tim G
Well-Known Member
Guess you know best...
ridetech939
New Member
I have never worked for Disney but I have done some PLC programing for another theme park company. Maybe I can give you all a little bit of a different perspective
If I was going to make Expedition Everest run five trains then I would probably make the following changes to the ride.
Set up the first small lift as a separate block (little to no benefit but it might help)
Utilize an AC or DC drive to change the lift speed for the second larger lift and have the lift slow down to crawl speed for any of the following reasons:
1) a Train not entered the loading area and four or five trains are online
2) a Train has stopped at the first switch track due to cascading stop
3) a Train has stopped at the second switch track due to cascading stop
4) a Train has stopped at the block brake after helix and before the yeti due to cascading stop
Install a floating block system between the load and unload areas so that as a train is leaving the loading area the next train can be exiting the unload area and entering the loading area
So the way I see it the blocks would be as follows
1) Loading
2) Unloading
3) Holding area before unload
4) Block brake before yeti
5) Switch track going forward *
6) Switch track going backward *
7) Second larger lift
8) First small lift *
* The two switch tracks could be too close together (ride time wise) to be really effectively used as two separate blocks. Same problem with first and second lift.
Question, what is the largest gap in time between two blocks? I suspects that this maybe the area between the switch track going forward and the block brake before the yeti. If so that would be the bottleneck of this operation.
3600/t*r
3600 is seconds in an hour
t = time in seconds between units
r = riders per unit
These are just a few ideas from an outside observer
If I was going to make Expedition Everest run five trains then I would probably make the following changes to the ride.
Set up the first small lift as a separate block (little to no benefit but it might help)
Utilize an AC or DC drive to change the lift speed for the second larger lift and have the lift slow down to crawl speed for any of the following reasons:
1) a Train not entered the loading area and four or five trains are online
2) a Train has stopped at the first switch track due to cascading stop
3) a Train has stopped at the second switch track due to cascading stop
4) a Train has stopped at the block brake after helix and before the yeti due to cascading stop
Install a floating block system between the load and unload areas so that as a train is leaving the loading area the next train can be exiting the unload area and entering the loading area
So the way I see it the blocks would be as follows
1) Loading
2) Unloading
3) Holding area before unload
4) Block brake before yeti
5) Switch track going forward *
6) Switch track going backward *
7) Second larger lift
8) First small lift *
* The two switch tracks could be too close together (ride time wise) to be really effectively used as two separate blocks. Same problem with first and second lift.
Question, what is the largest gap in time between two blocks? I suspects that this maybe the area between the switch track going forward and the block brake before the yeti. If so that would be the bottleneck of this operation.
3600/t*r
3600 is seconds in an hour
t = time in seconds between units
r = riders per unit
These are just a few ideas from an outside observer
Rob562
Well-Known Member
My proposal of how they could "safely" add a 5th train would be to come up with some sort of post-load hold point involving either an additional brake zone, or the small first lifthill itself. This would allow them to load a train and dispatch it immediately, where it would advance to the hold-point. Once the train in front of IT is past whatever the pre-determined point in the track is, the held train will then advance onto the 1st lifthill. It works similar (but not quite) to the two-boat launch on Splash or Pirates. While the first boat goes straight into the flume, there's a hold point for the second boat momentarily until the first boat is far enough ahead.
Come ot think of it, Space Mountain is the best example of a pre-lift hold point. There's actually two hold-points between the final lapbar checkpoint and the blue tunnel.
On EE, this scenario would allow them to be loading the next train, while the first train waits. It would ensure that in most instances the minimum dispatch time would be maintained. In some instances the train would cruise right through the hold-point as it does on Space Mountain. Or, if they're running 5 trains, they could program this hold point to not dispatch until there's a train behind it at Load, thus minimizing the impact a stopped train at Unload would have on the ride experience.
From an Imagineering Show Quality standpoint, I might want to add something to LOOK at while the train is stopped at this hold-point, though. Otherwise, you're just randomly stopped on a coaster track... Maybe replace the chain on the 1st lift with advancer wheels like at the top-of-the-mountain hold point, and program it to slow down, perhaps seem like the train is struggling to make it up even this small hill? I'm sure they could figure out a way to draw that out to be as short or as long as necessary (coming to a full stop when it gets to be TOO long of a wait, of course)
Thoughts?
-Rob
Come ot think of it, Space Mountain is the best example of a pre-lift hold point. There's actually two hold-points between the final lapbar checkpoint and the blue tunnel.
On EE, this scenario would allow them to be loading the next train, while the first train waits. It would ensure that in most instances the minimum dispatch time would be maintained. In some instances the train would cruise right through the hold-point as it does on Space Mountain. Or, if they're running 5 trains, they could program this hold point to not dispatch until there's a train behind it at Load, thus minimizing the impact a stopped train at Unload would have on the ride experience.
From an Imagineering Show Quality standpoint, I might want to add something to LOOK at while the train is stopped at this hold-point, though. Otherwise, you're just randomly stopped on a coaster track... Maybe replace the chain on the 1st lift with advancer wheels like at the top-of-the-mountain hold point, and program it to slow down, perhaps seem like the train is struggling to make it up even this small hill? I'm sure they could figure out a way to draw that out to be as short or as long as necessary (coming to a full stop when it gets to be TOO long of a wait, of course)
Thoughts?
-Rob
ridetech939
New Member
You have a good idea. However, I would not replace the first lift with series of drive tires that would slow down. Instead I would use a DC drive (or AC drive) to have the lift chain slow to a crawl speed if the train ahead has not reached the dispatch point. Keep in mind that it is better to slow a train on lift than have it stop. Reason being that if the train stops the riders are more likely to think that the ride has broken down and something is wrong with the ride. This is where guests will do something stupid like trying to exit the ride vehicle when they should not.
I suspect that drive tires were used in the switch track areas because it is easier to have them disengage from the train then it is a chain lift mechanism. Notice how the drive tries are touching in pairs when going up into the first switch track and then there is a gap between the tires when the train is going backwards out of the area. The train goes forward under power and rolls backwards with the aid of gravity.
Do they load special needs guests at unload? If so then do they hold the train at load until the special needs guest is loaded into the train at unload.
Thoughts?
Sean
DarkMeasures
New Member
They should have just gone with the duel station design of BTMRR.
juan
Well-Known Member
yea!
someone who knows block systems
I do think your setup with the lift speed would work quite well. I've seen it done before and it seems to work well.
I think that Disney would definitely have to change the queuing for rows. Depending on the CM, it sometimes delays the dispatch time
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
Doesn't the separate Load/Unload area accomplish the same thing? Perhaps if you had Dual Unload and Dual Load you could ensure there was always a train ready to be dispatched.
Rob562
Well-Known Member
There is one problem with a variable-speed lift chain: the anti-rollbacks.
The way the anti-rollbacks are designed, when the train is rolling forward a wheel creates a magnetic force that keeps the anti-rollback "dog" from dropping down into the rollback teeth (or something along those lines). If the chain were to stop or break and the train started moving backwards, the dogs would drop down and engage the teeth on the track.
That's why you hear the anti-rollback dogs only at the bottom and top of the lifts, because the speed isn't constant there, and it affects how the dogs are held in their upright position. (the curve of the track might also be a factor) Lowering the lift chain speed would affect the dogs' ability to stay in the "up" position.
This happened a few years ago on Superman: Ride of Steel at Six Flags New England. It uses a similar system to keep the dogs up out of the way, making for a silent lifthill. But for most of one season, for some reason the lifthill was run at a slower speed than the designed speed, and the dogs couldn't be kept in their up position so they clanked along the teeth in the track and it was VERY VERY loud. (You had trouble hearing the person sitting next to you)
If this same situation would happen on EE's lifthill, it would make it VERY loud and obnoxious both for the riders as well as people anywhere near the mountain or across the water.
-Rob
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
Bigger gear wheels elongate the chain sprockets, perhap add a widget and the interconnecting blocks. Couple this with an upgraded 220V DC motor and it should reduce load times buy 10%. At the same time a change to OM14 would reduce the tack of the lubricant in the humid Florida environment allowing the wheels to rotate at 1/50,000 quicker thus eliminating the drag caused buy fluctuating pentagons.
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
:lookaroun
perhaps 100 yards of shoreline could be used instead of the sprockets.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
I'm not sure of its tensile properties or how it would affect the aesthetics of the ride, but thats a good call.
teebin
Member
They had all 5 trains on the track today. No change to the ride at all except you stop for about 10-15 seconds outside of the mountain before rolling into the station. This resulted in an odd 10-15 second delay of the train coming out of the mountain. Usually, as a train was going up the big lift hill, a train would come out of the mountain. Today it was coming out of the mountain long after the lift train went out of site... there may have been a 5 second additional wait time at the broken tracks.
Also cool to note. I went on the ride again later in the afternoon... the ride was back to just 4 trains... one was parked just off track going out behind the bamboo... anyway... ALL of the emergency lights were on inside the mountain for the entire ride: backwards, yeti projection room, and final AA yeti room. It was wierd to see the stairs and emergency doors in the backwards part. Anyone else seen this?
Also cool to note. I went on the ride again later in the afternoon... the ride was back to just 4 trains... one was parked just off track going out behind the bamboo... anyway... ALL of the emergency lights were on inside the mountain for the entire ride: backwards, yeti projection room, and final AA yeti room. It was wierd to see the stairs and emergency doors in the backwards part. Anyone else seen this?