• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Rumor New Monorails Coming Soon?

jaxj21

Active Member
Looks like Green is back with new paint
EF4mEhEW4AAcUPn.jpg

Photo credit to That Other Site. Couldn't figure a way to post the tweet/article that wouldn't be blocked.
 
Last edited:

rmwebs

Well-Known Member
Loving the new individual branding they're going with on the back walls.

Would like to see what the state of the carbon fibre panels near the doors is like (the ones that the silver door poles go into). Noticed on I believe red a few weeks ago (which had smelly water pouring out of the aircon unit) looked really rough, the panels were all cracked and flexed massively when the doors swung closed. I'd assume (hope) that the maintenance bay has the ability to manufacture at least some parts of the interior paneling as they all need replacing - you can see where they've been given layers upon layers of paint over the years.
 

s8film40

Well-Known Member
Does anybody know what color monorail it was?
I believe it was Silver
Looks like Green is back with new paint
EF4mEhEW4AAcUPn.jpg
I thought the whole point of changing to the silver/gray interior was to match the color of the train. Seeing that they used the same color on this one I wonder if that was the original intention and they just abandoned the idea already or if the plan is to eventually have all trains have the silver/gray interior.
 

Monorail_Orange

Well-Known Member
I believe it was Silver

I thought the whole point of changing to the silver/gray interior was to match the color of the train. Seeing that they used the same color on this one I wonder if that was the original intention and they just abandoned the idea already or if the plan is to eventually have all trains have the silver/gray interior.
Apologies, I'm not completely following you...are you saying that you thought the plan was to have the seating surfaces also match to the train's color band (i.e. this seating cover color was first used on Silver, and Green should have had the same material in green)? Or I am just totally lost?
 

s8film40

Well-Known Member
Apologies, I'm not completely following you...are you saying that you thought the plan was to have the seating surfaces also match to the train's color band (i.e. this seating cover color was first used on Silver, and Green should have had the same material in green)? Or I am just totally lost?
Yes when Silver came out with the new paint job the blue seats had been replaced with silver or gray ones and the pink panels at the top of the interior had also been replaced with a silver/gray color. I just assumed that was to match the color, otherwise why change it? So I’m wondering if that was the plan and they just got cheap and decided not to follow through with the other colors.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
Yes when Silver came out with the new paint job the blue seats had been replaced with silver or gray ones and the pink panels at the top of the interior had also been replaced with a silver/gray color. I just assumed that was to match the color, otherwise why change it? So I’m wondering if that was the plan and they just got cheap and decided not to follow through with the other colors.
It seems to me that they purposely chose silver for the seats for all the trains, and it just happened to match the first train they refurbed.
 

Monorail_Orange

Well-Known Member
Yes when Silver came out with the new paint job the blue seats had been replaced with silver or gray ones and the pink panels at the top of the interior had also been replaced with a silver/gray color. I just assumed that was to match the color, otherwise why change it? So I’m wondering if that was the plan and they just got cheap and decided not to follow through with the other colors.
Ok, I understand now. My only caveat there, having the pink panel at the top of the interior instead match the color of the train's identifier band would look good. (I daresay a coat of primer and then appropriate colored paint could still fix that easily enough.) However, having the seat covers match the color of the train too...I keep trying to visualize it, and it keeps looking really funky in my mind, so I can't get too upset on that one, even if it is them cheaping out.

ETA: Just found on clickbait's site additional pictures...they DID recolor the pink panels at the top to match green, as well as update the warning stickers to not look tackily plastered on after the fact. Looks like they're trying to MMGA! Make the Monorail Great Again!
 
Last edited:

rowrbazzle

Well-Known Member
Looks like Green is back with new paint
EF4mEhEW4AAcUPn.jpg

Credit to the source of the picture - the place everyone here loves to hate. It seems kind of crappy to take from their work without attribution. Isn't that what they're always criticized for doing? I know we're hamstrung by filters on direct links, but still. (Unless you happen to be Derek Starling?)


The monorails certainly look nice all gussied up. Hopefully they run well.
 

trainplane3

Well-Known Member
So my friends and I were talking about the monorails yesterday. I mentioned how they jammed a automation system into a piece of early 90s hardware. They responded "hey, there's nothing wrong with automating something old as long as it works".

Monorail proceeds to pull up to the platform and the pilot can't get out because of a busted door handle. He reaches through the open window to open his door. We just look at each other and laugh. On the way to the TTC it over shoots the platform and spends the next 5 minutes backing up extremely slow. Friend admits that maybe it's time to ditch them in the middle of laughing.

Then there was the one door that wouldn't close and kept trying to. A good smack from the platform cast got it shut. Much more laughing happened.
 

Monorail_Orange

Well-Known Member
So my friends and I were talking about the monorails yesterday. I mentioned how they jammed a automation system into a piece of early 90s hardware. They responded "hey, there's nothing wrong with automating something old as long as it works".

Monorail proceeds to pull up to the platform and the pilot can't get out because of a busted door handle. He reaches through the open window to open his door. We just look at each other and laugh. On the way to the TTC it over shoots the platform and spends the next 5 minutes backing up extremely slow. Friend admits that maybe it's time to ditch them in the middle of laughing.

Then there was the one door that wouldn't close and kept trying to. A good smack from the platform cast got it shut. Much more laughing happened.
The automation system and it's (lack of) success are the best argument for replacing, or completely rebuilding the Mark VI trains, and thus creating the Mark VIII. The broken cockpit door handle and the need to smack the door to get it to seat closed properly are examples of needed maintenance. I won't call it poor maintenance because we don't know how long those problems have been allowed to continue, if the train was not taken out of service at the next opportunity that day, then it moves from needed into poor/insufficient maintenance.

I don't think anyone who has even a mild interest in the monorails should be surprised that the automation system cannot cope with stopping the monorail perfectly every time. It's been long known that each train, for whatever combination of reasons, has its own peculiarities, or perhaps a better way to describe it is "personality." Good monorail pilots can adapt their inputs to the control system far more quickly, and in greater range when necessary, than the automation system and make it feel like a rookie in training. (And not-so-good ones make the system look great.) I've ridden with plenty of both kinds of pilots over the years.
 
Last edited:

hpyhnt 1000

Well-Known Member
The automation system and it's (lack of) success are the best argument for replacing, or completely rebuilding the Mark VI trains, and thus creating the Mark VIII. The broken cockpit door handle and the need to smack the door to get it to seat closed properly are examples of needed maintenance. I won't call it poor maintenance because we don't know how long those problems have been allowed to continue, if the train was not taken out of service and the next opportunity that day, then it moves from needed into poor/insufficient maintenance.

I don't think anyone who has even a mild interest in the monorails should be surprised that the automation system cannot cope with stopping the monorail perfectly every time. It's been long known that each train, for whatever combination of reasons, has its own peculiarities, or perhaps a better way to describe it is "personality." Good monorail pilots can adapt their inputs to the control system far more quickly, and in greater range when necessary, than the automation system and make it feel like a rookie in training. (And not-so-good ones make the system look great.) I've ridden with plenty of both kinds of pilots over the years.

I haven't followed the automation saga too closely, but was its ultimate purpose to improve operational efficiency, or to try to eliminate the need for pilots in the long term?

If the goal was just increased efficiency, I'm not sure why anyone thought automation was going to move the needle on that. There's too many other variables with the system that need to be performed manually (opening/closing doors, the station gates, wheelchair access) to make train automation effective. Automation works best when everything (or nearly everything) can be automated and centrally controlled. As soon as you have to do bits and pieces manually, any potential gains quickly vanish.

If they want to make the system more efficient, then they've got to get station dwell times down. I've always been surprised at how inefficient station stops are. Some of it is guests no doubt, but a lot of it is just CMs being slow to open/close doors, a lack of platform CMs for the various tasks, and/or horribly inefficient procedures. And apparently it's only gotten worse in recent months.
 

Monorail_Orange

Well-Known Member
I haven't followed the automation saga too closely, but was its ultimate purpose to improve operational efficiency, or to try to eliminate the need for pilots in the long term?

If the goal was just increased efficiency, I'm not sure why anyone thought automation was going to move the needle on that. There's too many other variables with the system that need to be performed manually (opening/closing doors, the station gates, wheelchair access) to make train automation effective. Automation works best when everything (or nearly everything) can be automated and centrally controlled. As soon as you have to do bits and pieces manually, any potential gains quickly vanish.

If they want to make the system more efficient, then they've got to get station dwell times down. I've always been surprised at how inefficient station stops are. Some of it is guests no doubt, but a lot of it is just CMs being slow to open/close doors, a lack of platform CMs for the various tasks, and/or horribly inefficient procedures. And apparently it's only gotten worse in recent months.
Full disclosure, I don't know the answer to your question, as I'm no insider. My best somewhat-educated guess, though, is that the automation system was primarily done to give an additional layer of "safety" following the Pink/Purple accident. Essentially, it's the monorail's version of the "positive train control" or PTC that has been discussed for American Railroads following some of the terrible accidents that have happened in recent years.

You are absolutely right that if the goal was to eliminate the pilot's position the system has failed miserably. Same miserable failure if the goal was to increase efficiency, with station dwell times reportedly swelling, especially recently. (Which again, you're correct about.)

Which brings us back to the question of why spend this money to automate motion control (and only motion control, as you pointed out), if it wouldn't save payroll costs or increase efficiency? PTC/safety in the wake of the accident. This also gives them some isolation/protection that if, heaven forbid, another accident happened, that they did SOMETHING.
 

trainplane3

Well-Known Member
The automation system and it's (lack of) success are the best argument for replacing, or completely rebuilding the Mark VI trains, and thus creating the Mark VIII. The broken cockpit door handle and the need to smack the door to get it to seat closed properly are examples of needed maintenance. I won't call it poor maintenance because we don't know how long those problems have been allowed to continue, if the train was not taken out of service at the next opportunity that day, then it moves from needed into poor/insufficient maintenance.

I don't think anyone who has even a mild interest in the monorails should be surprised that the automation system cannot cope with stopping the monorail perfectly every time. It's been long known that each train, for whatever combination of reasons, has its own peculiarities, or perhaps a better way to describe it is "personality." Good monorail pilots can adapt their inputs to the control system far more quickly, and in greater range when necessary, than the automation system and make it feel like a rookie in training. (And not-so-good ones make the system look great.) I've ridden with plenty of both kinds of pilots over the years.
I appreciate the thoughts and agree with them. Also, I just want to be clear to anyone else reading it, I'm not "crapping" on the monorails but I did see a few things at the perfect moments that made me laugh.

I haven't followed the automation saga too closely, but was its ultimate purpose to improve operational efficiency, or to try to eliminate the need for pilots in the long term?

If the goal was just increased efficiency, I'm not sure why anyone thought automation was going to move the needle on that. There's too many other variables with the system that need to be performed manually (opening/closing doors, the station gates, wheelchair access) to make train automation effective. Automation works best when everything (or nearly everything) can be automated and centrally controlled. As soon as you have to do bits and pieces manually, any potential gains quickly vanish.

If they want to make the system more efficient, then they've got to get station dwell times down. I've always been surprised at how inefficient station stops are. Some of it is guests no doubt, but a lot of it is just CMs being slow to open/close doors, a lack of platform CMs for the various tasks, and/or horribly inefficient procedures. And apparently it's only gotten worse in recent months.
I feel I can confirm that. Dwell time is pretty bad now. Noticeably to the point where my non Disney nerd friends have mentioned "why are we at the Grand Floridian for 10 mins?" (As an example).
 

jpeden

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
I'm sure this has been posted before, but if you want a sense of what an enclosed people mover would have been like, get yourself to Houston and ride the future today!

I've skipped ahead to the relevant section, though I find the whole video worth a watch.


I believe it's also the same system used on the US Senate subway that connects the Senate Office Buildings and the US Capitol (the House has a much more rudimentary subway, but I'm not sure what it's based on - I've had the pleasure of riding both however).
 

s8film40

Well-Known Member
So my friends and I were talking about the monorails yesterday. I mentioned how they jammed a automation system into a piece of early 90s hardware. They responded "hey, there's nothing wrong with automating something old as long as it works".

Monorail proceeds to pull up to the platform and the pilot can't get out because of a busted door handle. He reaches through the open window to open his door. We just look at each other and laugh. On the way to the TTC it over shoots the platform and spends the next 5 minutes backing up extremely slow. Friend admits that maybe it's time to ditch them in the middle of laughing.

Then there was the one door that wouldn't close and kept trying to. A good smack from the platform cast got it shut. Much more laughing happened.
The door issues to be fair are really more of a design problem than a maintenance issue. Although the issue is definitely amplified due to poor maintenance.

The cab door is opened by pressing a button under the console that triggers the latch to release. Sometimes it’s off and doesn’t quite release the door and just needs to be adjusted. If it fails to open the door the only other option is to open the door from the outside.

the regular passenger doors were originally supposed to be sliding doors. The imagineer in charge of the project George McGuiness wanted to try to maintain a flush appearance as opposed to recessed doors that could slide. So they came up with the whole slide down out and around mechanism. It’s been an issue from the very beginning. If it gets bad monorail CM’s usually call maintenance who can then just adjust the pressure at which the door is closing so that it latches closed. It’s kind of a balance of a hard enough so it closes but not so hard it slams shut.
 

twilight mitsuk

Well-Known Member
The door issues to be fair are really more of a design problem than a maintenance issue. Although the issue is definitely amplified due to poor maintenance.

The cab door is opened by pressing a button under the console that triggers the latch to release. Sometimes it’s off and doesn’t quite release the door and just needs to be adjusted. If it fails to open the door the only other option is to open the door from the outside.

the regular passenger doors were originally supposed to be sliding doors. The imagineer in charge of the project George McGuiness wanted to try to maintain a flush appearance as opposed to recessed doors that could slide. So they came up with the whole slide down out and around mechanism. It’s been an issue from the very beginning. If it gets bad monorail CM’s usually call maintenance who can then just adjust the pressure at which the door is closing so that it latches closed. It’s kind of a balance of a hard enough so it closes but not so hard it slams shut.
Which is why most transit operators don’t use those kind of doors found on the monorail in light rail and metro
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom