Rumor New Monorails Coming Soon?

[Coaster Lover]

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?

(Disclaimer: This is all just conjecture) I'm pretty sure that (like a roller coaster), the monorails work on a blocking system that won't allow a monorail to progress into the next block until the block ahead is cleared. It's a feature that minimizes the risk of the two trains occupying the same block (i.e. a collision). I'm pretty sure the number of trains that the current system utilizes maximizes out what the blocking system will allow without stacking of the monorails. I believe the new automation system was supposed to reduce the block length and possibly allow for the use of more trains, but I'm not 100% certain of how true that is.

 

[ford91exploder]

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 an 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.

I think what @articos is saying is Disney is now operating the monorails like most Americans operate their cars, After the warranty expires people generally don't fix the 'little things' so in a few years the car while it still operates is basically a rolling pile of junk. Not like europeans who generally keep vehicles for 15-20 years and DO maintain the 'Little Things'. So while it's 20 years old EVERTHING still functions.

 

[ford91exploder]

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.

Any mechanical system if it's designed for maintainability will have an almost infinite service life SO LONG AS components are replaced after their useful lifetime has expired. Does not mean that the parts cant be remanufactured just that bearings, seals, actuators and other wear components have a fixed life after which they need to be replaced.

 

[DznyRktekt]

I think what @articos is saying is Disney is now operating the monorails like most Americans operate their cars, After the warranty expires people generally don't fix the 'little things' so in a few years the car while it still operates is basically a rolling pile of junk. Not like europeans who generally keep vehicles for 15-20 years and DO maintain the 'Little Things'. So while it's 20 years old EVERTHING still functions.

Generalize much?

 

[imarc]

(Disclaimer: This is all just conjecture) I'm pretty sure that (like a roller coaster), the monorails work on a blocking system that won't allow a monorail to progress into the next block until the block ahead is cleared. It's a feature that minimizes the risk of the two trains occupying the same block (i.e. a collision). I'm pretty sure the number of trains that the current system utilizes maximizes out what the blocking system will allow without stacking of the monorails. I believe the new automation system was supposed to reduce the block length and possibly allow for the use of more trains, but I'm not 100% certain of how true that is.

Makes sense. So...
- does a shorter roundtrip time (due to faster loading/unloading) reduce the size of the block and allow more trains?
- will a new train with newer features reduce the size of the block and allow more trains?

If not...
- how much is daily throughput increased by reconfiguring the trains to fit more people?
- how much is daily throughput increased by shorter load/unload times?

If up until now the answers have been minimal, I can understand the lack of push to invest in brand new monorails. It would solve some problems but still not fully address the issue that there are simply more people on property than there were 30+ years ago. It would make sense to maintain the monorails while pushing money towards solutions that better address the increased population on property.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I think what @articos is saying is Disney is now operating the monorails like most Americans operate their cars, After the warranty expires people generally don't fix the 'little things' so in a few years the car while it still operates is basically a rolling pile of junk. Not like europeans who generally keep vehicles for 15-20 years and DO maintain the 'Little Things'. So while it's 20 years old EVERTHING still functions.

Yes, sir... I know or at least think that is what is meant, but, I steadfastly disagree that any logical argument can be made for poor maintenance happening. I will agree that a new fleet is pretty much due, I don't think they would still be on the rail and operating, even at the diminished reliability that is so strongly implied. If anything they would be doing more maintenance done then before because of the age and the wear factor. It is pretty easy to figure out that the older thing get the more likely it is to have problems.

I don't know why anyone would think that it would benefit Disney to have constant breakdown stranding guests on beams, causing thousands of dollar worth of bad press and bad mouthing, to save a few dollars. They do some strange things sometimes, but, that would be beyond stupid. So, no... I am not buying the little maintenance scenario. If they have made those puppies run for the past 30 years, 7 days per week, 12+ hours a day, 365 days a year the only explanation other then they take good care of them is that there is divine intervention from above and every once in a while 7 seas lagoon parts and allows people to walk through to the other side.

 

[Master Yoda]

Any mechanical system if it's designed for maintainability will have an almost infinite service life SO LONG AS components are replaced after their useful lifetime has expired. Does not mean that the parts cant be remanufactured just that bearings, seals, actuators and other wear components have a fixed life after which they need to be replaced.

While "technically" true, it would only be practical in a world where technology does not advance. You eventually reach a point where replacing an older system is a better economic decision than continuing to maintain an old one due to advancements in durability, efficiency, etc.

A number of people have maintained Model A's and Model T's. I don't think any of us would want to depend on one as a daily driver.

 

[MisterPenguin]

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.

The funny thing is in that example is that, in the long run, the 'jam' doesn't slow you down. As long as you're allowed to race up to catch up to the car in front of you that leaves the jam, you make up for the time spent in the jam.

Now, if people didn't race up, or a speed limit kept them from racing up, then it would slow you down. Or, if you left the jam (got off the highway, e.g.,) before you got a chance to race up, then you'd be behind schedule. So, jams can slow everyone down in most cases, but not all cases.

If in a closed monorail loop you had one train take extra long to unload/load, then that can be made up for it by going a little faster whenever you can. Ideally the computer would control that and eventually get all the trains back to equal spacing.

 

[Bender123]

The funny thing is in that example is that, in the long run, the 'jam' doesn't slow you down. As long as you're allowed to race up to catch up to the car in front of you that leaves the jam, you make up for the time spent in the jam.

Now, if people didn't race up, or a speed limit kept them from racing up, then it would slow you down. Or, if you left the jam (got off the highway, e.g.,) before you got a chance to race up, then you'd be behind schedule. So, jams can slow everyone down in most cases, but not all cases.

If in a closed monorail loop you had one train take extra long to unload/load, then that can be made up for it by going a little faster whenever you can. Ideally the computer would control that and eventually get all the trains back to equal spacing.

Kind of...The problem with a closed loop is that the only way to truly solve it is a hold at all stations to "reset" the loop. On a highway, the cars slowly get them selves out of the loop as less cars enter the jam than leave it. A closed system does not allow this to happen. Speeding up will always be a function of the next train in line, which is at the mercy of the one in front of that, etc...until the train moving faster is affected, once again by the constant and even in/out feed.

The math actually shows the best way to break the cycle is jut to stop them all at a station, fully load them, hold them and dispatch them at roughly the same time.

The fact that its a loop really messes with standard models.

 

[larryz]

Kind of...The problem with a closed loop is that the only way to truly solve it is a hold at all stations to "reset" the loop. On a highway, the cars slowly get them selves out of the loop as less cars enter the jam than leave it. A closed system does not allow this to happen. Speeding up will always be a function of the next train in line, which is at the mercy of the one in front of that, etc...until the train moving faster is affected, once again by the constant and even in/out feed.

The math actually shows the best way to break the cycle is jut to stop them all at a station, fully load them, hold them and dispatch them at roughly the same time.

The fact that its a loop really messes with standard models.

I was just thinking, "so, one train per station is optimal..."

 

[imarc]

Kind of...The problem with a closed loop is that the only way to truly solve it is a hold at all stations to "reset" the loop. On a highway, the cars slowly get them selves out of the loop as less cars enter the jam than leave it. A closed system does not allow this to happen. Speeding up will always be a function of the next train in line, which is at the mercy of the one in front of that, etc...until the train moving faster is affected, once again by the constant and even in/out feed.

The math actually shows the best way to break the cycle is jut to stop them all at a station, fully load them, hold them and dispatch them at roughly the same time.

The fact that its a loop really messes with standard models.

Doesn't that just push the wave back to the line at each waiting platform?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Kind of...The problem with a closed loop is that the only way to truly solve it is a hold at all stations to "reset" the loop. On a highway, the cars slowly get them selves out of the loop as less cars enter the jam than leave it. A closed system does not allow this to happen. Speeding up will always be a function of the next train in line, which is at the mercy of the one in front of that, etc...until the train moving faster is affected, once again by the constant and even in/out feed.

The math actually shows the best way to break the cycle is jut to stop them all at a station, fully load them, hold them and dispatch them at roughly the same time.

The fact that its a loop really messes with standard models.

Well, in that video example, I timed one car at a cycle in 30 seconds. Then I timed a car stuck in the jam, and because it was able to race ahead when out of the jam, it cycled once in 30 seconds also.

Intuition tells me that if a train is fully loaded, you send it out and not wait for a full reset. Mainly because one of the stations participating in the full reset could hold everyone up if they had an issue.

 

[imarc]

Well, in that video example, I timed one car at a cycle in 30 seconds. Then I timed a car stuck in the jam, and because it was able to race ahead when out of the jam, it cycled once in 30 seconds also.

Intuition tells me that if a train is fully loaded, you send it out and not wait for a full reset. Mainly because one of the stations participating in the full reset could hold everyone up if they had an issue.

That's what it seems to me. I always thought a big cause of the jam/wave was human reaction time.

In a fully automated system, if one train is taking longer to load, you could have the train coming behind it slow down to hit the station right after it's cleared and the slow train can speed up to get back to its ideal position. You still lose that time but from a user experience, they're not just sitting outside the station. Hopefully all of the trains on the loop could speed up when possible to remove the wave.

 

[Bender123]

I was just thinking, "so, one train per station is optimal..."

Unless your realistic load time is less than the travel time between stations, then, yes. The problem is that the actual travel time between stations is lower than a realistic average load/unload cycle. I believe the actual number because of the travel distance is closer to four with five stations. This math is also why you could realistically throw four trains on the Epcot beam and not have this issue. The close to 10 minute trip time is far lower than the in station cycle time. You can have two in station and two en route and they normally wont interfere with each other. On the MK loops, if you have five trains, they will never be able to leave until the one in front of them does. The longest travel time is GF to MK and that is, on the whole, a very short travel time.

 

[Bender123]

That's what it seems to me. I always thought a big cause of the jam/wave was human reaction time.

In a fully automated system, if one train is taking longer to load, you could have the train coming behind it slow down to hit the station right after it's cleared and the slow train can speed up to get back to its ideal position. You still lose that time but from a user experience, they're not just sitting outside the station. Hopefully all of the trains on the loop could speed up when possible to remove the wave.

Maybe, but then the train slowing for the slow load will cause the one behind it to slow, which will cascade backwards through the system. You can time them to launch and arrive properly, but it wont increase throughput. You are just adjusting your "standing" time and "moving time". Those numbers will still stay virtually identical if added together.

 

[imarc]

Maybe, but then the train slowing for the slow load will cause the one behind it to slow, which will cascade backwards through the system. You can time them to launch and arrive properly, but it wont increase throughput. You are just adjusting your "standing" time and "moving time". Those numbers will still stay virtually identical if added together.

But wouldn't it allow for time to be made up in the system in the future if say a train has a shorter than average load time (reduction in demand) while having all trains stop to reset and erase a jam loses that time forever?

 

[Master Yoda]

That's what it seems to me. I always thought a big cause of the jam/wave was human reaction time.

In a fully automated system, if one train is taking longer to load, you could have the train coming behind it slow down to hit the station right after it's cleared and the slow train can speed up to get back to its ideal position. You still lose that time but from a user experience, they're not just sitting outside the station. Hopefully all of the trains on the loop could speed up when possible to remove the wave.

This^^^

In a fully automated system with accurate enough controls you could have one train per station with every train leaving and arriving the next station simultaneously. Delays at one station would carry through the entire line, but they do that in any single track system already.

 

[frankc]

Makes sense. So...
- does a shorter roundtrip time (due to faster loading/unloading) reduce the size of the block and allow more trains?
- will a new train with newer features reduce the size of the block and allow more trains?

If not...
- how much is daily throughput increased by reconfiguring the trains to fit more people?
- how much is daily throughput increased by shorter load/unload times?

If up until now the answers have been minimal, I can understand the lack of push to invest in brand new monorails. It would solve some problems but still not fully address the issue that there are simply more people on property than there were 30+ years ago. It would make sense to maintain the monorails while pushing money towards solutions that better address the increased population on property.

Question to those who know more about these. If the new cars are walk through couldn't they add a car to each train to add capacity? Even if the extra car makes the ends of the train extend past the stations they could still be occupied by "walking through the prior car". Just a thought.

 

[Bender123]

But wouldn't it allow for time to be made up in the system in the future if say a train has a shorter than average load time (reduction in demand) while having all trains stop to reset and erase a jam loses that time forever?

The other issue is that you don't have even loads at each station to make this a possibility. The MK station will always have, by far, the highest volume on the resort loop (Epcot and Express should be roughly equal). You can dispatch trains much faster at the resorts than at the MK, which sees almost all the volume of the other stations, combined, loaded and unloaded on each circuit.

No matter what, you are always going to end up waiting for the MK station...its just the way the crowds and system work. You can send the GF train out, but its going to sit on the beam waiting for the MK train to dispatch. As a cascading function, the train that left the Poly will now be stuck in the GF station waiting, etc...You just end up with a giant gap, because you have uneven loads, uneven travel times and a system that doesn't dispatch based on a hard timer (like most public transportation).

You can do this, but you are going to have to go to a public transport system that auto dispatches at set time intervals, whether everybody is on board or not, which wont work well in a WDW scenario, nearly as well as it would work on the London Tube. Its the pain of a batch system. This is why the gondolas are a better system, because they don't involve a batch release system, they are continuous load and unload.

 

[marni1971]

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.

Anything new would have a readdressed interior layout.

Nothing says they can’t be longer either. Aside from a bit of construction work at the stations.