Rumor New Monorails Coming Soon?

[twilight mitsuk]

There is no limit to how long a train will last, provided it is maintained. VIA Rail in Canada uses cars built as far back as 1947 in daily service.

As trains get older though, especially custom units and those with drive systems, maintenance does get more intensive and parts harder to find. A 30 year design lifespan for mass transit vehicles isn't uncommon.

NYC R32 trains were built back in 1964

 

[articos]

It’s not necessarily a time lifespan for the trains, it’s a use and overhaul lifespan. 4 trains currently fit inside the Contemporary for severe weather.

 

[Figment2005]

I'd say probably 4 right? With the noses almost sticking out.

In the early days yes they would park them nose to nose, but past events have caused that option to be discontinued.

 

[ParksAndPixels]

4 do indeed fit, they had 4 inside the contemporary during Charley
View attachment 278904

Would love to see wide pics with four inside. Kinda cool shot and unique.

 

[ABQ]

Not 4, but 2 here, with the support tractor, and the doors closed before last fall's hurricane.
Photo courtesy of that loud guy Jake from Bright Sun Films' twitter.

 

[Goofyernmost]

As I mention, a design lifespan of 30 years isn't uncommon for a mass transit vehicle, though 50 years would be. A 30 year lifespan would also involve multiple overhauls, minor and major, over the life of the vehicle.

Though it certainly isn't OK, Disney isn't the only place where the lifespan of a train is being stretched past what it was originally designed for.

Buses, yes. But fixed rail travel with no traffic to contend with and no 90 degree corners to negotiate, should put a few more years on them. The bus company I used to work for have buses that are run every single day that were purchased in the 80's. They have had meticulous maintenance but, honestly with the problems they deal with, stop and go, and 6 months of winter and salt... it is amazing that they still operate, but, they do and they do it well. The last time I drove one of those was 8 years ago and they still handled and drove like brand new. I cannot imagine that Disney has a single train that hasn't been rebuilt from front to back over those years.

 

[articos]

I cannot imagine that Disney has a single train that hasn't been rebuilt from front to back over those years.

Unfortunately, I can, with the current trains. It did not used to be this way.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Unfortunately, I can, with the current trains. It did not used to be this way.

I guess I have to take you word for it, that it is arms and legs worse then it used to be. I have never experienced any problems that couldn't be explained as a simple mechanical failure. Something that every mechanical device ever invented is prone to do. Sometimes I think that some of you live in a utopia where the sun is shining every day, nothing ever goes wrong and the birds only chirp modern songs. It's been about 30 years of running everyday, million and millions of guest laden miles have been placed on them. They run 12 or more hours per day and you sit there and expect me to believe that they haven't all been completely rebuilt mechanically at least once in all those years and all those miles? Sorry, I'm not that gullible. I know machinery and I know maintenance and believe me more has been spent on keeping those vehicles in top shape then you can even imagine.

Things break on new things too. This idea that they just run them until they fall off the track is ridiculous and so far out of the grasp of reality that it is almost like an LSD trip. Believe what you want, but, I'll tell you if you can tell me a place that can build a piece of transportation that never has to replace items, I would like to buy my next car from them.

 

[matt9112]

The current bench seating is inefficient for the express loop especially when you consider the proliferation of strollers or even the transit crushes of rope drop and post fireworks.

never thought of that but yeah the seating is crap when you really think about it.

 

[donsullivan]

never thought of that but yeah the seating is crap when you really think about it.

The interior of those cabins has actually changed a whole lot since they were put on the beam. Originally, each seating bay had an additional pair of fold-down seats in the center of the cabin. There were 2 vertical poles across the width of the cabin with a fold-down seat on each side that could hold ~2 people on each side. Over the years those seats got locked up so we just had the 2 poles with the panel between them that some would sit atop between the poles. That became a hassle with the growing number of strollers having those columns and panel in the middle of the cabin so it was removed and replaced with the 4 pole configuration we have now making it easier to board a larger number of strollers and increasing capacity overall.

Below is a bad picture of that configuration . I'm still trying to find a shot that shows it a little better.

EDIT: This one shows it a little better. The gray part with the blue band at the top of it in between teh columns would fold down on each side to add a couple of additonal seats on each side before they were locked up.

 

[matt9112]

The interior of those cabins has actually changed a whole lot since there were put on the beam. Originally, each seating bay had an additional bay of fold-down seating in the center of the cabin. There were 2 vertical poles across the width of the cabin with a fold-down seat on each side that could hold ~2 people on each side. Over the years those seats got locked up so we just had the 2 poles with the panel between them that some would site atop between the poles. That became a hassle with the growing number of strollers having those columns and panel in the middle of the cabin so it was removed and replaced with the 4 pole configuration we have now making it easier to board a larger number of strollers and increasing capacity overall. I can't seem to find a picture of that cabin configuration and don't remember specifically what year they changed.

I remember the panel but never the seats.

 

[larryz]

I'd get rid of all the seats and just run poles and straps.

 

[donsullivan]

I remember the panel but never the seats.

I don't remember the exact timing but they didn't last as usable seats for all that long before they were locked up. They just got in the way of loading too often if they were down when a new group, especially one with strollers was trying to board.

 

[networkpro]

Consider the current Monorails with the Bombardier APM 300's interior from Sao Palo. While not as many seats, theres more room for strollers, people, ECVs.

 

[donsullivan]

View attachment 278994

Consider the current Monorails with the Bombardier APM 300's interior from Sao Palo. While not as many seats, theres more room for strollers, people, ECVs.

Wouldn't it be nice to have that much space when leaving MK after firworks. However, as discussed earlier in this thread trains that large will not fit on the WDW monorail beams. Whatever replaces the current generation isn't likely to be all that much larger overall than what we have today but with the use of newer construction methods and drivetrain systems they are likely to have much greater passenger capacity.

 

[imarc]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed to death in other threads, but I see a lot about increasing capacity as far as per train capacity.

It seems that if the new monorails are level with the platform or the platforms are raised to allow for faster loading/unloading, couldn't they then just add more monorails into the system? Or have they already hit a physical limit as to the number of concurrent trains on a single rail at once?

 

[TJJohn12]

Consider the current Monorails with the Bombardier APM 300's interior from Sao Palo. While not as many seats, theres more room for strollers, people, ECVs.

That type of layout in the current fleet - just ripping out the interiors and redesigning - would yield some interesting results in terms of usable space. (I've been building a model of the Mark VI of late and doing scale research). Here's a quick mockup of current layout and a gutted layout, along with rough calculation of standing-room floor spaces:

 

[imarc]

So you lose 4 seats put pick up 19 sqft.

 

[TJJohn12]

So you lose 4 seats put pick up 19 sqft.

Super roughly, yes.

 

[Bender123]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed to death in other threads, but I see a lot about increasing capacity as far as per train capacity.

It seems that if the new monorails are level with the platform or the platforms are raised to allow for faster loading/unloading, couldn't they then just add more monorails into the system? Or have they already hit a physical limit as to the number of concurrent trains on a single rail at once?

Interesting fact...WDW wanted to justify buying more monorails in the past, except their statistics actually show more trains make the system less efficient, due to safety blocks and distances. Basically, adding more trains cause he trains to sit on the beam and wait for longer periods and cause "rolling traffic jams" that just do not ever dissipate. Its a strange math function, but it actually holds up.

The guy who did that math on the monorail actually was the guy responsible for fast pass, as a bit of trivia...

Here is the monorail example as a function of cars. Its a cool little showing of how traffic patterns work and applies to the monorails as well.