Maybe I did as a kid. I can't recall. But in all my adult trips, I never have. We always stay on property and use Disney transportation. I drive a two hour round trip for work each day and I am perfectly happy to not be behind the wheel of a car at all while at Disney.
If I don't get my tram ride at MK, like I have been doing for 35 years, a huge part of the experience is missing. I took the bus one time, the only time I stayed onsite, and I felt like something was missing all day. The next day I drove my car to the parking lot, and that old feeling came rushing back. My day was complete. Tram ride, ferry or Monorail to MK and I was ready to begin my day.
Yes and no. You have to go back to the original structure of the Disney Companies. Walt and Roy had plans that were aimed towards expansions of their expertise to other municipalities and companies, in order to justify the costs they were incurring doing new things (theme parks, attractions, monorails, urban planning, waterways, etc.). In order to keep control, they separated the corporate entities. The entities controlled by Walt and Roy were more interested in providing services and controlling technologies. The companies that consolidated into the Disney Company we know today had no intent of following what the Disneys’ wanted. They were operational companies. When Roy stepped back, the parks were doing ok, and WED/WDI was being supported by the Disney company, so there wasn’t as much of need for providing services to outside parties. After the Eisner years, the company consolidated on core competencies (entertainment) only, and that was it.
hashtag tangled bathrooms
Thanks for answering my question, "they upgraded the old trains a few years ago" but the trains themselves are still 29 years old. Meaning that the Mark 1, 2, & 3 trains got replaced on an average of 7 year, while the current trains have been in service about 4 times as long as any of the previous models... it's funny how the internet is good at documenting things but has know idea how to understand the data it documents.
When was that?
This gets referenced a lot, but are we sure that the old trains weren't replaced more frequently because they had to be? That is, either they weren't designed for longevity or that they had drawbacks so there was clear incentives for replacements? I mean, I'm sure that the increased importance of economic drivers to management was a big part of it but as an engineer, it doesn't surprise me when I hear that versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 came in quick succession before things stabilized a bit more with version 4.0. Or version 3.1, ha!
Oh they are 29 years old for sure. I'm not confused about the data you are presenting. You just seemed... Unsure as to whether or not they were actually automated. He made the statement that just because the doors open by themselves that doesn't mean they're automated and I was clarifying that they actually are automated. They do not have drivers. They have people who sit or drivers used to be, but they're not actually doing anything except for monitoring what the train is doing by itself.
Lengthening trains is a possibility.
