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

[DisDude33]

Both are/were childsplay compared to the pure torture of many other coasters that have (fortunatly) left us... Cedar Point's Mean Streak, SFMM's Psyclone, Goliath at SFNE, Son of Beast at Kings Island... I would gladly marathon ride Matterhorn over going back in time and getting just one ride on one of those rides again...

Son of Beast was actually the first coaster I ever rode and it was fun but didn’t turn me into an instant enthusiast.

 

[Andrew25]

I don't know much, but it's pretty clear to see what scenarios will play out:

• Retracking the current layout would, more than likely, be difficult to approve due to the low clearances in some sections, unless they can engineer an impressive support structure.
• A new coaster within the existing shell would likely be a single track with side by seating and likely require a larger maintenance bay to accommodate larger trains.

My biggest worry is if the foundation in which SM currently sits is strong enough to support an all-new build.

They could always add to the building as long as the facade is lower than the current exterior shell.

 

[el_super]

My unpopular opinion is both Matterhorn and MK's SM should be retracked. But only MK's should have a completely new layout and updated theming. Matterhorn is perfect as is just is to jerky.

I'm probably never riding either the Matterhorn or Space Mountain again, but if they do tear out Space Mountain and build something more comfortable and modern, I might consider it.

I do think it's weird tho to have Tron right next door, since most of the futuristic detail elements would probably go into an updated Space Mountain too... and that just seems redundant.

 

[Coaster Lover]

Son of Beast was actually the first coaster I ever rode and it was fun but didn’t turn me into an instant enthusiast.

Son of Beast was awesome when it first opened but it aged like fine milk...

 

[UNCgolf]

I do think it's weird tho to have Tron right next door, since most of the futuristic detail elements would probably go into an updated Space Mountain too... and that just seems redundant.

One of the many reasons putting TRON there was a mistake.

They could have overhauled Space Mountain, then demolished the Tomorrowland Speedway and had room to make a significant (and better) addition to Tomorrowland that wasn't redundant with Space Mountain.

 

[el_super]

One of the many reasons putting TRON there was a mistake.

They could have overhauled Space Mountain, then demolished the Tomorrowland Speedway and had room to make a significant (and better) addition to Tomorrowland that wasn't redundant with Space Mountain.

Yeah... Tron was a mistake.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Retracking the current layout would, more than likely, be difficult to approve due to the low clearances in some sections, unless they can engineer an impressive support structure.

The currently track at Disneyland isn’t exactly the same layout as the old one. There were slight tweaks made to accommodate the different structure that was intended to actually support the weight of the audio system.

A new coaster within the existing shell would likely be a single track with side by seating and likely require a larger maintenance bay to accommodate larger trains.

Any replacement would be an opportunity to reconfigure the maintenance area, see Big Thunder Mountain Railroad.

My biggest worry is if the foundation in which SM currently sits is strong enough to support an all-new build.

Large buildings do not typically have a single foundation, but multiple foundations at specific points. The vibration of a roller coaster is also not something you usually want interacting with the rest of the building, so they also typically have their own foundations. This is why Expedition Everest was boasted as having three structural systems intertwined. The construction photos of Space Mountain show dirt around the main columns that support the structure. That suggests that they could rip out a nice chunk of the floor slab (or even all of it) and provide new foundations for the new track, whether it be the same or a different layout.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Could be! Also, I hate to say it, but it might just be because it's less expensive to build one coaster than two.

If this is the case then it will most likely happen. If the coaster needs a refurb anyway, and it’s cheaper to go this way, they will do it.

In WDW, it’s not about history, legacy, guest experience, uniqueness, it’s all about COST SAVINGS!

Unlike their movie business, in their theme park business, especially in WDW, it’s about cost savings!

We can all be happy that the one thing Disney does not do to reduce costs is defer maintenance.

Yes, I know we had stuff falling off the monorails at WDW but you have to hand it to them being able to keep the monorails running for the most part safely 20 years past their normal lifespan.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

Does anyone here know how they did the retrack for DL's Space Mountain in the early 2000s? Did they have to open up the side of the building somewhere?

 

[rct247]

I have always been a fan of WDW Space over DL Space because the track layout eas better even though DLs has other great qualities.

WDWs Space Mountain does need to be replaced badly though. The building does have a lot of space that I'd hope a two track replacement could happen. I also think the idea of a single rail coaster would be ideal to keep to a similar experience, but the two-across seating would be welcomed as well.

Really though, Guardians should have been the Space replacement and Tron should have gone to Epcot.

 

[rle4lunch]

Does anyone here know how they did the retrack for DL's Space Mountain in the early 2000s? Did they have to open up the side of the building somewhere?

You don't remember the big cube painted 'go away' blue?

i kid. i have no clue.

 

[flynnibus]

Doesn't anyone else just feel like this is kids on the internet taking snipets from one story and extrapolating to others?

I mean with Toyko being completely rebuilt... who wouldn't suggest the question 'would WDW change their coaster too?'

 

[flynnibus]

Does anyone here know how they did the retrack for DL's Space Mountain in the early 2000s? Did they have to open up the side of the building somewhere?

The buildings have service access in the ring around the base. They can also temporarily make those bigger if need be by just rebuilding that portion of the wall. The coasters are built inside the existing dome.

Photos from the original disneyland construction

Space Mountain Construction

davelandblog.blogspot.com

 

[Splash4eva]

Doesn't anyone else just feel like this is kids on the internet taking snipets from one story and extrapolating to others?

I mean with Toyko being completely rebuilt... who wouldn't suggest the question 'would WDW change their coaster too?'

Im actually shocked this ride still exists years after Tron has opened

 

[lazyboy97o]

Doesn't anyone else just feel like this is kids on the internet taking snipets from one story and extrapolating to others?

I mean with Toyko being completely rebuilt... who wouldn't suggest the question 'would WDW change their coaster too?'

It’s something people have been saying since 2003 when Disneyland’s track was replaced.

 

[flynnibus]

It’s something people have been saying since 2003 when Disneyland’s track was replaced.

And everytime there is any permutation of any of the rides...

I find it amusing there is nearly 10 pages of speculation over SOS...

 

[flynnibus]

Moving from 2 tracks to 1 would have no telling on if capacity or ride time would go up or down.

It can be very telling. On multiple fronts...

If you go from 2 tracks to 1.. this is presumably so you have more room for your 1 track. Which people assume would be to have a longer ride. Even if you doubled the train capacity, but you extended the duration of the ride.. that would decrease hourly throughput.

When you go from two independently cycling rides to one double sized ride you increase the exposure to reduced throughput. A missed dispatch of a smaller train = less people impacted than a dispatch of a larger train. So the hit to your throughput is smaller. Two independent systems also means a interruption means less throughput is lost due to that interruption if only half of your capacity is impacted.

The other thing about side by side seating is the vehicles are larger. Larger vehicles -> bigger ride paths .. you can lose that 'tight' feeling when the pathway is 50% wider due to a wider vehicle (even tho the envelop requirements are the same). Single lane road vs a double lane road...

But I gotta imagine there is no way in 2025 that Disney designs a new coaster with in-line seating. Just between accessibility, ride cycle time, safety restraints, presumptions over personal space, product availability... I would expect Disney to switch to a more modern conventional seating arrangement.

 

[Purduevian]

It can be very telling. On multiple fronts...

If you go from 2 tracks to 1.. this is presumably so you have more room for your 1 track. Which people assume would be to have a longer ride. Even if you doubled the train capacity, but you extended the duration of the ride.. that would decrease hourly throughput.

Not necessarily.. it's all about dispatch times and train sizes, not ride length. As long as a single track, double capacity train is dispatched at the same average rate as the two current SM tracks, capacity will remain constant... even if the ride length is extended.

In order to dispatch at the same average rate, the density of block brakes would also need to remain the same throughout the track length. The number of total trains would also need to scale appropriately

When you go from two independently cycling rides to one double sized ride you increase the exposure to reduced throughput. A missed dispatch of a smaller train = less people impacted than a dispatch of a larger train. So the hit to your throughput is smaller. Two independent systems also means a interruption means less throughput is lost due to that interruption if only half of your capacity is impacted.

100% agree. I know DLR reduces this issue by having a slide track to pull "problem" trains off the main track, but two fully independent rides will certainly reach closer to their theoretical throughput than 1. Also see ToT and Soarin.

The other thing about side by side seating is the vehicles are larger. Larger vehicles -> bigger ride paths .. you can lose that 'tight' feeling when the pathway is 50% wider due to a wider vehicle (even tho the envelop requirements are the same). Single lane road vs a double lane road...

Agreed, but doesn't affect capacity

But I gotta imagine there is no way in 2025 that Disney designs a new coaster with in-line seating. Just between accessibility, ride cycle time, safety restraints, presumptions over personal space, product availability... I would expect Disney to switch to a more modern conventional seating arrangement.

 

[peter11435]

It can be very telling. On multiple fronts...

If you go from 2 tracks to 1.. this is presumably so you have more room for your 1 track. Which people assume would be to have a longer ride. Even if you doubled the train capacity, but you extended the duration of the ride.. that would decrease hourly throughput.

When you go from two independently cycling rides to one double sized ride you increase the exposure to reduced throughput. A missed dispatch of a smaller train = less people impacted than a dispatch of a larger train. So the hit to your throughput is smaller. Two independent systems also means a interruption means less throughput is lost due to that interruption if only half of your capacity is impacted.

The other thing about side by side seating is the vehicles are larger. Larger vehicles -> bigger ride paths .. you can lose that 'tight' feeling when the pathway is 50% wider due to a wider vehicle (even tho the envelop requirements are the same). Single lane road vs a double lane road...

But I gotta imagine there is no way in 2025 that Disney designs a new coaster with in-line seating. Just between accessibility, ride cycle time, safety restraints, presumptions over personal space, product availability... I would expect Disney to switch to a more modern conventional seating arrangement.

Ride length is not really relevant in discussing attraction capacity/throughput on tracked rides. What matters is the interval between dispatches and the amount of guests that can be sent in each dispatch.

 

[Andrew25]

I'm not 100% confident on what Space Mountain's average theoretical dispatch rate is, but it tends to be around the 25 sec mark so I'll go with that for this exercise.

At a 25-sec interval barring setbacks, that's about 1.7K guests an hour total. GOTG can do about 2K at 35-sec intervals.

IMO, while I love the current SM... I'd love to see a higher capacity offering replace current version.