Rumor MK Space Mountain REVISED in 2026? (One track? side-by-side seating?)

[flynnibus]

reading comprehension…. Fail

 

[Purduevian]

I think you are arguing about two different things...

Peter11435 is saying that two rides can have the same capacity regardless of the ride length (True)

I think flynnibus is saying that while designing a ride, track length (along with number of vehicles, vehicle capacity, block , number of blocks, block duration, load time, and unload time) must be taken into account in order to reach a desired capacity. (True)

The overall point is, IF Disney decides to build a single track, double wide, longer duration space mountain. They will need to consider the track length, number of vehicles, vehicle capacity, block , number of blocks, block duration, load time, and unload time in order to meet the capacity of the current double track set up.

That being said, since in theory, this would presumably be a new design, there is no reason this new theoretical design would have the same hourly capacity of the current iteration of space mountain even if the cycle time is longer.

Or did I misunderstand someone?

 

[lazyboy97o]

But it’s the result I’m after.

Let’s both go to a park and test our theories. I’ll measure capacity by sitting in one location and counting, you can go measure track length and count break zones, and we’ll see who has the most accurate answer.

The result only really has meaning when given a baseline for comparison. If you sit and count dispatches and come up with x people per hour how do you know if that is good or bad? Operations of the ride could be a well oiled machine or it could be a serious failure. And in the case of themed entertainment it could be fantastic throughout but an experiential failure. There’s an old story of Walt having a fit because he hopped onto the Jungle Cruise and was sped through the attraction. We take it for granted today but Disneyland was really a pioneer in rigidly standardizing ride times, even if it meant a hit to throughput.

 

[flynnibus]

They will need to consider the track length, number of vehicles, vehicle capacity, block , number of blocks, block duration, load time, and unload time in order to meet the capacity of the current double track set up.

Yes, that's what is meant by 'dependencies' and data points that are 'relevant' when the different variables (how many vehicles, how many seats, how many blocks, speed/timing, etc) are being manipulated to get the result you are happy with. This is a system of equations - the variables are not independent.

Simply comparing two outcomes doesn't expose how those outcomes were bounded or reached. You don't see two systems with the same output and conclude 'Ha! see, those middling bits didn't matter!"

It's like the boss asking at the pitch meeting "how tall will the new coaster be?" and the engineer says "well, how tall we can make it will depend on the size of the building" and the poser in the room says "What are you talking about.. the building isn't part of the coaster, I'll just use a tape measure and measure the coaster!"

And the engineers just roll their eyes...

That being said, since in theory, this would presumably be a new design, there is no reason this new theoretical design would have the same hourly capacity of the current iteration of space mountain even if the cycle time is longer.

The point being made was... just doubling the seats per vehicle does not gauruntee the same throughput as the original two coasters. It would depend on all the things mentioned in the ride design. You can't treat the elements as completely independent. The outcome may reach an equivalent result, but that doesn't mean the factors weren't relevant.. it means you made the equations reach the result you wanted.

And add to that, if that was the output, to take the space that held TWO coasters, and all you got new was someone sitting next to you instead of behind you, would you as a guest think that was worthy? Would you as an executive being told that 'its the same, but now will be smoother and last' is good enough to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on?

Or would you expect them to try to find something DIFFERENT to market for the ride?

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I don't really understand the point of replacing the existing two tracks with one, custom designed track.

You'd have to spend the time and money designing something from scratch, while working within the confines of an existing building. Unless the plan is to tear the whole thing down like Tokyo? I don't see Disney bothering with that.

And what kind of coaster would it even be? One big downward spiral like Disneyland? Another version of Cosmic Rewind?

I also don't see why the bobsled style seating is such an issue either when next door there's a coaster that's more complicated to load, arguably more uncomfortable to sit in and requires everyone to empty their pockets first.

I'm all for replacing the track and making modifications to the ride vehicles to allow for things like onboard audio, but the track layout and type of coaster itself has never been the problem for me. I like it a lot better than Disneyland's.

 

[flynnibus]

I also don't see why the bobsled style seating is such an issue either when next door there's a coaster that's more complicated to load, arguably more uncomfortable to sit in and requires everyone to empty their pockets first.

The coaster next door still had the ability to put in an full width accessible seat cab... which is a lot easier to load then the bobsled.

 

[Jrb1979]

I don't really understand the point of replacing the existing two tracks with one, custom designed track.

You'd have to spend the time and money designing something from scratch, while working within the confines of an existing building. Unless the plan is to tear the whole thing down like Tokyo? I don't see Disney bothering with that.

And what kind of coaster would it even be? One big downward spiral like Disneyland? Another version of Cosmic Rewind?

I also don't see why the bobsled style seating is such an issue either when next door there's a coaster that's more complicated to load, arguably more uncomfortable to sit in and requires everyone to empty their pockets first.

I'm all for replacing the track and making modifications to the ride vehicles to allow for things like onboard audio, but the track layout and type of coaster itself has never been the problem for me. I like it a lot better than Disneyland's.

A custom version of that for Space Mountain would be awesome. It's one person per row and and would be a smooth and intense ride through space.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

A custom version of that for Space Mountain would be awesome. It's one person per row and and would be a smooth and intense ride through space. View attachment 846721

They're not going to build that kind of coaster.

If you want a looping Space Mountain, you can go to Paris.

 

[Jrb1979]

They're not going to build that kind of coaster.

If you want a looping Space Mountain, you can go to Paris.

A guy can dream. In all seriousness, IMO with what they are doing to the parks theme wise and bringing in more thrills why not compete with Universal with some big thrills.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The coaster next door still had the ability to put in an full width accessible seat cab... which is a lot easier to load then the bobsled.

Full width of what? There’s only a minimum width requirement if you provide a wheelchair space.

They're not going to build that kind of coaster.

If you want a looping Space Mountain, you can go to Paris.

It wouldn’t need to loop. RMC’s Raptor track is a contemporary product that is similar. It has low, single file seating. The track profile could also help with some of the contemporary clearance concerns.

 

[rle4lunch]

Make it into a "real" spaceship launch to the first drop (magnetic, think hulk or guardians) into space, whiz past some asteroids on the first drop hill, weaving between them, then swooping through a few obstacles before coming back to land on earth. They could leave the premise alone completely and have a great new experience without duplicating cosmic rewind or mission space green/orange.

 

[peter11435]

If you sit and count dispatches and come up with x people per hour how do you know if that is good or bad? Operations of the ride could be a well oiled machine or it could be a serious failure.

I’m not talking about sitting and counting dispatches. You are correct in that respect because that is based on performance which is operationally variable. However there is a minimum threshold for dispatch allowable by each ride system. No matter how well oiled the operations machine is they can only dispatch so quickly. This limits and dictates your theoretical capacity. That minimum dispatch interval is limited by various constraints of the ride system. But unless it’s a single vehicle system then track length is not one of them.

 

[rle4lunch]

I’m not talking about sitting and counting dispatches. You are correct in that respect because that is based on performance which is operationally variable. However there is a minimum threshold for dispatch allowable by each ride system. No matter how well oiled the operations machine is they can only dispatch so quickly. This limits and dictates your theoretical capacity. That minimum dispatch interval is limited by various constraints of the ride system. But unless it’s a single vehicle system then track length is not one of them.

Makes me think about how terrible RNRC is with this.

 

[gorillaball]

I think you are arguing about two different things...

Peter11435 is saying that two rides can have the same capacity regardless of the ride length (True)

I think flynnibus is saying that while designing a ride, track length (along with number of vehicles, vehicle capacity, block , number of blocks, block duration, load time, and unload time) must be taken into account in order to reach a desired capacity. (True)

The overall point is, IF Disney decides to build a single track, double wide, longer duration space mountain. They will need to consider the track length, number of vehicles, vehicle capacity, block , number of blocks, block duration, load time, and unload time in order to meet the capacity of the current double track set up.

That being said, since in theory, this would presumably be a new design, there is no reason this new theoretical design would have the same hourly capacity of the current iteration of space mountain even if the cycle time is longer.

Or did I misunderstand someone?

Agree as a whole. This convo has gone way off the rails with the goal posts moving.

My entire focus was on this quote by @flynnibus

“… if you doubled the train capacity, but you extended the duration of the ride.. that would decrease hourly throughput.“

I disagree with that quote. It might decrease hourly capacity, it might not. There is not enough information given in the statement to make a factual declaration. Ride length itself does not dictate lowered capacity.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I’m not talking about sitting and counting dispatches. You are correct in that respect because that is based on performance which is operationally variable. However there is a minimum threshold for dispatch allowable by each ride system. No matter how well oiled the operations machine is they can only dispatch so quickly. This limits and dictates your theoretical capacity. That minimum dispatch interval is limited by various constraints of the ride system. But unless it’s a single vehicle system then track length is not one of them.

Track length is a constraint of the ride system.

Let’s say we have an omnimover that requires a minimum of 6’ between ride vehicles. Ride A has 600’ of track which means 100 ride vehicles spaced 6’ apart. Ride B has 605’ of track with 100 ride vehicles spaced 6.05’ apart. They both run at the maximum speed of 100 feet/minute. Ride A dispatches 16.6 ride vehicles per minute but Ride B dispatches 16.5 ride vehicles per minute. Ride B has a longer dispatch time because of its track length.

Now yes, for this example the difference is very small, only about 6 vehicles per hour or 12 people assuming 2 per vehicle, but it is a difference. It’s also small because it’s pretty much the limit on how close vehicles can be spaced. Larger and faster ride vehicles are going to require more space, so the impact is going to vary.

 

[gorillaball]

Track length is a constraint of the ride system.

Let’s say we have an omnimover that requires a minimum of 6’ between ride vehicles. Ride A has 600’ of track which means 100 ride vehicles spaced 6’ apart. Ride B has 605’ of track with 100 ride vehicles spaced 6.05’ apart. They both run at the maximum speed of 100 feet/minute. Ride A dispatches 16.6 ride vehicles per minute but Ride B dispatches 16.5 ride vehicles per minute. Ride B has a longer dispatch time because of its track length.

Now yes, for this example the difference is very small, only about 6 vehicles per hour or 12 people assuming 2 per vehicle, but it is a difference. It’s also small because it’s pretty much the limit on how close vehicles can be spaced. Larger and faster ride vehicles are going to require more space, so the impact is going to vary.

Now do the same with ride A at 595’ and ride B at 600’. Which is longer track length? Which has more throughout?

 

[peter11435]

Track length is a constraint of the ride system.

Let’s say we have an omnimover that requires a minimum of 6’ between ride vehicles. Ride A has 600’ of track which means 100 ride vehicles spaced 6’ apart. Ride B has 605’ of track with 100 ride vehicles spaced 6.05’ apart. They both run at the maximum speed of 100 feet/minute. Ride A dispatches 16.6 ride vehicles per minute but Ride B dispatches 16.5 ride vehicles per minute. Ride B has a longer dispatch time because of its track length.

Now yes, for this example the difference is very small, only about 6 vehicles per hour or 12 people assuming 2 per vehicle, but it is a difference. It’s also small because it’s pretty much the limit on how close vehicles can be spaced. Larger and faster ride vehicles are going to require more space, so the impact is going to vary.

Your example is flawed. In changing the vehicle spacing you have directly modified the dispatch interval. There is no reason vehicle spacing had to be modified aside from your trying to provide a gotcha. Omnimover spacing is a constant across a fleet. If one ride has 600 feet of track and the other 900 feet of vehicle. The only reason they won’t have the same capacity is if you increase spacing or adjust the speed. There is no need to do either aside from the ridiculous hypothetical of using a track length inconsistent with the ride system.

The reason your example results in a lower capacity is not because it has a longer track but because you decided to design a system that purposefully didn’t maintain the lowest vehicle spacing/dispatch interval. Nobody would do that.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Now do the same with ride A at 595’ and ride B at 600’. Which is longer track length? Which has more throughout?

I have not claimed the relationship is linear. It demonstrates that dispatch interval is not actually independent of track length even in a system that smooths out a lot of other variables.

 

[peter11435]

I have not claimed the relationship is linear. It demonstrates that dispatch interval is not actually independent of track length even in a system that smooths out a lot of other variables.

No. You created a ridiculous scenario that would never exist to demonstrate that. You didn’t smooth out other variables you actually forced a modification to one of the most important variables regarding dispatch interval.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No. You created a ridiculous scenario that would never exist to demonstrate that. You didn’t smooth out other variables you actually modified one of the most important variables regarding dispatch interval.

It is the scenario that exists all the time. Track layouts are not designed as perfect multiples of the minimum spacing.