Rumor New Monorails Coming Soon?

[Goofyernmost]

Yes, I did read that incorrectly. I apologize, however, 9 minutes with two stops and only 3 minutes more for 5 stops. Could be, but, I don't think that is going to be a consistent number. There are so many other factors involved like "waiting for clearance to enter the terminal", Loading delays, etc. Using numbers that reflect a perfect world do not really tell an accurate story. Besides like mentioned in the past, there are choices from MK, Resort Boats, and Ferry's which take less time at closing then the Monorails do anyway.

 

[s8film40]

Yes, I did read that incorrectly. I apologize, however, 9 minutes with two stops and only 3 minutes more for 5 stops. Could be, but, I don't think that is going to be a consistent number. There are so many other factors involved like "waiting for clearance to enter the terminal", Loading delays, etc. Using numbers that reflect a perfect world do not really tell an accurate story. Besides like mentioned in the past, there are choices from MK, Resort Boats, and Ferry's which take less time at closing then the Monorails do anyway.

Yeah, the truth is there is no real consistent number, things are always fluctuating and as you pointed out there are a lot of variables. I was talking about capacity though. It’s kind of like if I said the capacity of a gallon milk container is a galllon. That doesn’t mean all gallon milk container are full but that’s the capacity, the potential. I chose the numbers I did because they represent what is reasonably achievable if everything is going as it should. They’re not exactly record setting or anything but good numbers that most people in monorail operations would be happy with. Also as to why resort isn’t that much more with 3 stops is because that beam is actually a little faster to get around. If operated as an express it’s pretty easy to get cycles pretty close to 8 minutes or maybe slightly under that.

 

[Jonathan Wang]

The old system didn't really have direct control over throttle and braking. It's kind of hard to explain or understand if you haven't used it yourself, but I've always described it as like trying to drive with cruise control (like in a car). For example if you shift into P5 you're not really applying power to the motors but telling the computer you would like to go 40MPH. The train then does it's thing to make that happen, it will accelerate right away and start tapering off as it reaches 40. Same for other propulsion settings, braking etc. After a while you kind of just got a feel for it and could predict what was going to happen, but everything you did to control it kind of had a delayed affect. But yeah, you would actually go straight to P5 or B4 in a lot of instances and the computer made that more gentle despite most pilots wishes. I have no idea what the automation system is doing, personally I would've thought that it would be smoother and more precise.

I cant remember who im trying to quote but since you mentioned how the propulsion system works ill leave this here.

this would be the reason why the automation system has a hard time not being abrupt. gotta also remember the guys programming the systems arent the pilots so they think the system is acting as it should. Programming something to gradually slow down or speed up on a old outdated monorail train isnt exactly cake. Programming in general isnt fun, i personally hate it

 

[wm49rs]

fq

Leave, Ford....

 

[Creathir]

I cant remember who im trying to quote but since you mentioned how the propulsion system works ill leave this here.

this would be the reason why the automation system has a hard time not being abrupt. gotta also remember the guys programming the systems arent the pilots so they think the system is acting as it should. Programming something to gradually slow down or speed up on a old outdated monorail train isnt exactly cake. Programming in general isnt fun, i personally hate it *****

As a software engineer, it would be a dream come true to work on the monorail control systems...

 

[s8film40]

I cant remember who im trying to quote but since you mentioned how the propulsion system works ill leave this here.

this would be the reason why the automation system has a hard time not being abrupt. gotta also remember the guys programming the systems arent the pilots so they think the system is acting as it should. Programming something to gradually slow down or speed up on a old outdated monorail train isnt exactly cake. Programming in general isnt fun, i personally hate it *****

I kind of wonder if maybe they built the system on multiple layers. As in instead of the automation program having direct access to supplying power to the motors instead maybe it only has acces to propulsion settings like in the old system. So in other words the new automation system tells the old system what to do. I don’t know that’s just wild uninformed speculation on my part. It does seem like the Vegas system works much better so I’m really not sure what happened with the WDW one. I kind of suspect Disney either took some shortcuts or wanted to keep something in place that doesn’t work well with it.

 

[msg7]

I kind of wonder if maybe they built the system on multiple layers. As in instead of the automation program having direct access to supplying power to the motors instead maybe it only has acces to propulsion settings like in the old system. So in other words the new automation system tells the old system what to do. I don’t know that’s just wild uninformed speculation on my part. It does seem like the Vegas system works much better so I’m really not sure what happened with the WDW one. I kind of suspect Disney either took some shortcuts or wanted to keep something in place that doesn’t work well with it.

First and foremost, going with Thales' Seltrac instead of Bombardier's CITYFLO was a shortcut....

 

[s8film40]

First and foremost, going with Thales' Seltrac instead of Bombardier's CITYFLO was a shortcut....

Well I’m comparing a Thales system with a Thales system and something seems different/not as good with Disney’s. So it doesn’t seem to me that Thales is the issue.

 

[Figment2005]

I've heard people talking with CMs say that the monorails have needed much more maintenance on the drive system ever since the automation was installed.... They must find a way to stop the jerkiness from the power to braking transition... However, as some of you have mentioned, there are various limitations which prevent this but I have a feeling that they can do it... I'll try to come up with a diagram this week of the current transition points vs. possible new ones...

The propulsion system is 100% analog, and the new control system cannot work at peak efficiency without and updated propulsion system. A driver is much smoother because they can predict how the train will respond with feel and experience. The computer gets no feedback since it's an analog drive system. That's why the trains are jerky. Imagine being numb to all senses and trying to drive a car. Yes it can be done, but it won't be efficient or smooth.

 

[Jonathan Wang]

The propulsion system is 100% analog, and the new control system cannot work at peak efficiency without and updated propulsion system. A driver is much smoother because they can predict how the train will respond with feel and experience. The computer gets no feedback since it's an analog drive system. That's why the trains are jerky. Imagine being numb to all senses and trying to drive a car. Yes it can be done, but it won't be efficient or smooth.

this, plus remember disney still wanted the drivers there. i bet if they went to a full automated system it would be alot better. the drivers can still drive if they wanted to in the current setup i believe.

 

[Figment2005]

I kind of wonder if maybe they built the system on multiple layers. As in instead of the automation program having direct access to supplying power to the motors instead maybe it only has acces to propulsion settings like in the old system. So in other words the new automation system tells the old system what to do. I don’t know that’s just wild uninformed speculation on my part. It does seem like the Vegas system works much better so I’m really not sure what happened with the WDW one. I kind of suspect Disney either took some shortcuts or wanted to keep something in place that doesn’t work well with it.

It's the trains themselves that limit the new automation system. The drive system is based on analog relays with 5 forward and 4 braking, just like you said. TCS is designed with fine control to determine speed, and this isn't possible unless the entirety of the current propulsion system is torn out and replaced with a modern digital version.

 

[Figment2005]

this, plus remember disney still wanted the drivers there. i bet if they went to a full automated system it would be alot better. the drivers can still drive if they wanted to in the current setup i believe.

Yes, drivers can still drive and it's obvious when they do. However going full automation with no driver would have no affect on how they currently handle. It's a hardware limitation of the train, not a software limitation.

 

[msg7]

Well I’m comparing a Thales system with a Thales system and something seems different/not as good with Disney’s. So it doesn’t seem to me that Thales is the issue.

Vegas runs Thales also? Didn't realize that.... I thought they used CityFlo...

 

[Jonathan Wang]

Yes, drivers can still drive and it's obvious when they do. However going full automation with no driver would have no affect on how they currently handle. It's a hardware limitation of the train, not a software limitation.

well yes it sortve matters, because disney couldve revamped the systems for digital if they really wanted full automation. just like vegas did with theirs. but because disney decided to keep the analog systems to allow drivers they had to do it how they did it.

they arent gonna revamp to digital if they want to keep drivers around.

 

[s8film40]

Vegas runs Thales also? Didn't realize that.... I thought they used CityFlo...

Yeah. I’ve always wondered what the real difference between the Thales and CityFlow system are. Who knows maybe they’re the same thing and Bombardier just resells it with their own branding. Bombardier was very heavily involved in the Vegas system they even operate the system. So I imagine it was probably their choice to use Thales.

 

[Jonathan Wang]

Yeah. I’ve always wondered what the real difference between the Thales and CityFlow system are. Who knows maybe they’re the same thing and Bombardier just resells it with their own branding. Bombardier was very heavily involved in the Vegas system they even operate the system. So I imagine it was probably their choice to use Thales.

if i remember correctly thales is more common than cityflow, cityflow is bombbardier newest automation system they were pushing with the new 300's

trying to remember where i read that tho.

 

[msg7]

Yeah. I’ve always wondered what the real difference between the Thales and CityFlow system are. Who knows maybe they’re the same thing and Bombardier just resells it with their own branding. Bombardier was very heavily involved in the Vegas system they even operate the system. So I imagine it was probably their choice to use Thales.

Maybe Bombardier didn't have an automation system of their own yet...

 

[s8film40]

Maybe Bombardier didn't have an automation system of their own yet...

Yeah there was no CityFlo back then. They always marketed them with optional automation though, Thales was just their supplier. They even marketed the Mark VI trains with automation back in the early 90’s. I’ve never seen the CityFlo system in person and I have no idea what if any difference there is. Like I said I kind of wonder if CityFlo isn’t just Bombardiers way of saying they’ll contract Thales to work on automation.

 

[Jonathan Wang]

Yeah there was no CityFlo back then. They always marketed them with optional automation though, Thales was just their supplier. They even marketed the Mark VI trains with automation back in the early 90’s. I’ve never seen the CityFlo system in person and I have no idea what if any difference there is. Like I said I kind of wonder if CityFlo isn’t just Bombardiers way of saying they’ll contract Thales to work on automation.

i'm trying to gather some more info on cityflo right now, looks like they only had city flo 450 which almost no one wanted, and cityflo650 is the newest which is getting quite popular

edit: looks like cityflo650 works by radios in each train, which wouldve helped during the accident of 2009.
CITYFLO 650 also supports adding 4g LTE to get direct location of each train.

also using moving block to keep trains closer together.


CITYFLO 650 signalling is a CBTC system designed by Bombardier Transportation. It makes use of bi-directional radio communication between trains and wayside equipment, as well as true moving block technology, to control train operation. Trains report their position via radio, and a wayside signalling system provides movement authorities to the trains via a radio link.


edit: seltrac thales system seems to be more basic design on communication between the trains. not quite sure if this is a fixed block or moving block

 

[GlacierGlacier]

One day, just not today. LG’s OLED tech points the way.

Disney has already used transparent screens in Na'vi River Journey. Multiple transparent layers stacked a decent distance apart to give a deeper parallax effect