Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Or it could be said since the buses vastly outnumber the monorail trains, the the monorail supplements the buses. Couldn't ya?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Monorail Expansion Discussion
- Thread starter PeterAlt
- Start date
Actually, the ultimate would be PRT. PRT stands for Personal Rapid Transit and is on demand for a party of 4 or 6 and goes directly to where you want it to go by pressing a button like the floor buttons on elevators.
Now, you're getting technical. It's all part of an integrated system, but the goal should be to lessen the dependence on buses and increase the use of alternate forms of transportation systems, including a next generation automated monorail, light rail, and automated peoplemover tram systems.Or it could be said since the buses vastly outnumber the monorail trains, the the monorail supplements the buses. Couldn't ya?
While we haven't solved anything here, collectively, we have made more progress on the subject than any previous thread on this subject has!
Soarin' Over Pgh
Well-Known Member
Would be great but not very cost effective. At least a people mover system is a continuous moving and loading set of vehicles.
I'd also settle for a resort wide skyway system. I know that will never, ever happen but it would be nice. I truly miss the skyway at DL, it was one of the coolest things I've been on.
Bonus: relaxing and scenic.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
As I said before, monorails are a romantic solution. They actually can be less of a hassle if they put the catwalks along side of the rail, but that would ruin the aesthetics and make it a strictly functional process instead of magical. It's just not worth it for Disney. Cities, yes. At an entertainment venue, more can easily become too much. Buses are generally cheaper, can be depreciated at a quicker rate and are easily rescued when breakdowns happen. I know I really wouldn't want to see the monorails with a bunch of rusting catwalks destroying the majesty of them. Other rail systems set up as transportation only, would work and would probably be a good alternative. They would carry more, move unencumbered and last a long time. If they went that way and kept the Monorail fleet as it is now...I could get strongly behind that.
James122
Well-Known Member
I agree with what Goofyernmost said: the monorail is obviously a more glamourous form of transportation: who wouldn't prefer taking a sleek, fast monorail train over a noisy, cramped bus?
The problem is that any expansion of the monorail system would be at a tremendous cost and as others have mentioned, the monorail comes with its own special brand of problems. A broken-down monrail train usually cripples the line, snarling rail traffic across the system and resulting in hundreds, or even thousands of upset visitors. On the other hand, a bus break down usually never has the same far-reaching effect. Any expansion of the system would also mean additional monorail trains, which would run the cost even higher.
Building a light rail link to supplement the buses and monorails would be just as costly. Light rail lines, while cheaper than heavy rail, are still expensive propositions. To give a little bit of context, the city of Los Angeles opened the first phase of a new light rail line last year. The 8.5 mile line runs mostly at grade level with a few elevated segments and cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 million dollars. That's almost a billion dollars for 8 miles of track. You can assume that a light rail system at WDW would likely be equally as expensive.
I think we'll be stuck with the buses at WDW for the foreseable future.
The problem is that any expansion of the monorail system would be at a tremendous cost and as others have mentioned, the monorail comes with its own special brand of problems. A broken-down monrail train usually cripples the line, snarling rail traffic across the system and resulting in hundreds, or even thousands of upset visitors. On the other hand, a bus break down usually never has the same far-reaching effect. Any expansion of the system would also mean additional monorail trains, which would run the cost even higher.
Building a light rail link to supplement the buses and monorails would be just as costly. Light rail lines, while cheaper than heavy rail, are still expensive propositions. To give a little bit of context, the city of Los Angeles opened the first phase of a new light rail line last year. The 8.5 mile line runs mostly at grade level with a few elevated segments and cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 million dollars. That's almost a billion dollars for 8 miles of track. You can assume that a light rail system at WDW would likely be equally as expensive.
I think we'll be stuck with the buses at WDW for the foreseable future.
Last edited:
This message is going to leave everyone who reads it saying "Huh?".
There is so much innovation that can be done that haven't even been tried yet.
For example, why should trains ever stop? Why do we always enter the train from the side? Why not from the back of the train? Or from the roof of a train?
Why not treat trains as if they were spacecrafts and have other trains rendezvous with it and the passengers simply switch cars instead of getting off and waiting for another train to get to a certain location? Two trains side by side could dock with one another, allow passengers to board one or the other, then separate and go to different locations.
Trains can even run on top of one another, with a set of tracks on the roof of a train. This would allow for trains to pass a stopped train without the expense of building a spur. Or trains could run on top of a moving train to provide extra speed.
Or what about a submarine train running along a submerged cable in WDW's vast canal system?
There is so much innovation that can be done that haven't even been tried yet.
For example, why should trains ever stop? Why do we always enter the train from the side? Why not from the back of the train? Or from the roof of a train?
Why not treat trains as if they were spacecrafts and have other trains rendezvous with it and the passengers simply switch cars instead of getting off and waiting for another train to get to a certain location? Two trains side by side could dock with one another, allow passengers to board one or the other, then separate and go to different locations.
Trains can even run on top of one another, with a set of tracks on the roof of a train. This would allow for trains to pass a stopped train without the expense of building a spur. Or trains could run on top of a moving train to provide extra speed.
Or what about a submarine train running along a submerged cable in WDW's vast canal system?
Zweiland
Well-Known Member
You have to say it twice. There were two messages, remember?
EDIT: No longer makes sense
Last edited:
Soarin' Over Pgh
Well-Known Member
....agreed.
Huh?
I think I see your point... But not entirely.
I think you're going for a nonstop continuous motion vehicle that people load...differently. Fundamental differences, there. I like the idea of continuous load, like the doom buggies, but consider how slow they go and how they STILL have to stop for wheelchairs, strollers (disabled child) and for emergencies. More over, they have to run slowly because people are loading onto them without the vehicles stopping. An argument could be made for a doom buggy style, resort wide, covered roof (with guide rails of course) system that could, theoretically take you from port Orleans to the magic kingdom. It would be a slow, relaxing ride (unless you had to pee!) but would definitely be costly. However, I think it could work.
As for the other half of your idea, ok. I can see loading differently, like from the roof down, or from the back, sure. But the vehicle would most definitely have to be at a complete stop for that to work and it wouldn't be any more feasible than the current load from the side. Plus, the wheelchair/stroller factor would make that a very tough sell.
I hope I hit on what you were trying to say correctly. If not, please point me in the right direction.
Huh?
I think I see your point... But not entirely.
I think you're going for a nonstop continuous motion vehicle that people load...differently. Fundamental differences, there. I like the idea of continuous load, like the doom buggies, but consider how slow they go and how they STILL have to stop for wheelchairs, strollers (disabled child) and for emergencies. More over, they have to run slowly because people are loading onto them without the vehicles stopping. An argument could be made for a doom buggy style, resort wide, covered roof (with guide rails of course) system that could, theoretically take you from port Orleans to the magic kingdom. It would be a slow, relaxing ride (unless you had to pee!) but would definitely be costly. However, I think it could work.
As for the other half of your idea, ok. I can see loading differently, like from the roof down, or from the back, sure. But the vehicle would most definitely have to be at a complete stop for that to work and it wouldn't be any more feasible than the current load from the side. Plus, the wheelchair/stroller factor would make that a very tough sell.
I hope I hit on what you were trying to say correctly. If not, please point me in the right direction.
Soarin' Over Pgh
Well-Known Member
Slightly unrelated, but kinda.
Someone told me recently of this thing going around my city. It's a bar on a bike. You pedal and booze. And somehow, this is street legal. Anyhow, thought you might enjoy the concept. It's a strange one.
Someone told me recently of this thing going around my city. It's a bar on a bike. You pedal and booze. And somehow, this is street legal. Anyhow, thought you might enjoy the concept. It's a strange one.
Zweiland
Well-Known Member
They have those in a lot of cities now. I don't really get the point (aside from making money), but they are kind of cool, in a strange way.Slightly unrelated, but kinda.
Someone told me recently of this thing going around my city. It's a bar on a bike. You pedal and booze. And somehow, this is street legal. Anyhow, thought you might enjoy the concept. It's a strange one.
DVCOwner
A Long Time DVC Member
I agree that the buses are here to stay for awhile, so how about making some bus roads in the more crowded areas. With the major expansion of the bus area at Magic Kingdom traffic into and out of that area (including the resorts that are expanding) traffic is going to be a problem. Bus only roads running to Magic Kingdom may speed things up greatly. These roads could be made with overpasses so there would be few on grade crossing in high traffic areas.
So if Disney doesn't think it's economical to put a track/rail/cable on top of the ground how in the world would it be economical to put one under water?
sshindel
The Epcot Manifesto
Shhh... don't let things like "logic", "science", "reason", or "sanity" seep into this thread. It'll ruin the fun.
My bad.
Maybe they could harness all the power of the wildlife on property. Hook up all he alligators, deer and rabbits to wagons and pull people from place to place.
sshindel
The Epcot Manifesto
See, that is the right "outside of the box" (of sanity) kind of thinking that is needed here!
Maybe we should look to see if we can harness the kinetic energy that is caught when a person wearing a MagicBand swings their arms when they walk. I've gotta think that enough folks wearing a MagicBand, swinging their arms when they walk, creates a lot of kinetic energy with the centrifugal force of their arms in motion. If we can somehow wirelessly harness that energy and beam it to some central power stations, and then pipe that over to the monorail system, we could run a fleet of new monorails on this amazing power source, at little cost to Disney (outside of the massive R&D effort, infrastructure upgrades, technology invention and investment, etc)...