Star Wars Land announced for Disney's Hollywood Studios

[TP2000]

Is that the reason why Walt didn't want the Haunted Mansion to be a walk through? Or maybe it was Pirates. I can't remember, but he was worried about capacity.

Walt wasn't worried. Richard Nunis was. Walt mentioned that in his Tencenial anniversary speech to Cast Members in 1965 at the Disneyland Hotel.

The audio of that Walt speech used to be available on YouTube, but Disney had it pulled down because you could hear the tinkling of the ice cubes in the glass of Scotch that Walt had in his hand and Uncle Walt said a few mild swear words. But he also addressed ride capacity at Disneyland and future attractions.

 

[Crazydisneyfanluke]

Transformers has a basement too.

So does fast and furious.

 

[Crazydisneyfanluke]

It would

Imagine if you ascend inside a vast, hanger type environment.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

It would

Imagine if you ascend inside a vast, hanger type environment.

Screenz!?!

 

[captainmoch]

The idea of a ride that you have to get in and out of sounds awful. A logistics nightmare AND it doesn't sound particularly fun to ride. Yuck.

 

[roj2323]

The idea of a ride that you have to get in and out of sounds awful. A logistics nightmare AND it doesn't sound particularly fun to ride. Yuck.

I have to agree that the logistics would be a nightmare. How would you ensure people keep moving? If a few groups decide to hang out in the attraction for a while that would easily snowball into a dismal riders per hour.

 

[Stripes]

Getting on and off a ride during operation?? (Yes, I get that it will be designed to stop first. ) Getting off a ride and interacting with the show before getting back on seems like a logistical nightmare. How in the world are they planning on getting everyone back on-board in a timely manner before the next vehicle gets there? I call BS on the description of the ride by Micechat. Can you imagine the ride stopping constantly because little jimmy is scared and doesn't want to get back in the vehicle? Or how about Sally "Artistic" Photographer that cannot stop taking photos long enough to get back in the vehicle before the next one arrives?

I've been thinking about this. I think, assuming the load/unload rumor is true, Disney may take advantage of the trackless system to direct ride vehicles to bypass an affected unload/load station. They'd probably also have to have an in-theme Cast Member at each stop point to make sure things were moving along, and disengage the station if it got clogged up, allowing the ride operation to continue moving, relatively unaffected.

The "walk through" portions would have to be unessential to the story, and simply for increased immersion, so that the disabled would be unaffected/still able to enjoy and understand the attraction.

Again, this all assumes that the load/unload rumor is true, which may not be a correct assumption.

Another big factor is how particularly long this "experience" is going to be. Are we talking 10 minutes? 20 minutes?! 30 minutes?!!

 

[doctornick]

The concept art for DL indicates the land has different elevations at different parts -- so it would make some sense that you might enter the Alcatraz ride on one level and switch elevations during the ride and get off at a different level.

DHS's version of the land looks to be more flat, but perhaps with taller structures. So, I am not sure that we'll see the same massive hole dug in Florida (even though it is possible, albeit expensive to do) rather than more vertical building. It's worth noting that they could build taller structures in the SW area and put aircraft warning lights -- they could easily be done in a way that is "in theme" which would mean the building could be taller than IIRC 200 ft.

The "getting off and on" vehicles is intriguing even if the folks here seem to have disputed that. I find it hard to understand how that could be effectively managed, but I'll admit that I'd love to see WDI come up with a way to pull it off. It would certainly make for a very unique experience.

@marni1971 previously had said that WDI and Disney have learned their lesson about having lower capacity rides and that the plans for Star Wars took this into account. I'm skeptical that ride capacity will be as low as the Miceage article claims. I'm glad to see @JediMasterMatt seem to concur that Miceage's numbers being off (though I hope the Falcon ride is more like 1800/hr than 1500).

Given the massive show building (buildings?) planned for Alcatraz, I'm not surprised by the AA numbers. While I'm sure there will be a liberal amount of screens used to compliment, that ride is going to have some large physical sets. You could perhaps argue that given DL's limited space that the ride's footprint will be "too large" but I doubt anyone will complain about that if the experience is top notch. I also get the sense that there might be some variation in experiences with different ride paths (something that LPS vehicles seamlessly allow to happen).

 

[Mike S]

Maybe the reason for getting off/on is that you're captured by Stormtroopers, forced to get off, and then the resistance steps in allowing you to reboard and escape? Of course this would probably have to be done with live actors and would be the complete next level from GMR. Sounds expensive too.

 

[choco choco]

Nobody seems to have mentioned the most logical solution: You don't sit down in the ride vehicle. It would work the same way as modern day Ferris wheels' like the London Eye or the Las Vegas High Roller. Vehicles are continually cycling through a boarding area. Guests pile on. There's a limit to how many guests each vehicle can hold, but otherwise operators simply keep loading until the vehicle reaches the edge of the platform. There's not a particular worry to fill seats and certainly no need to herd guests into orderly "rows," as another vehicle comes promptly behind. When loading is finished, door closes and off it goes. There's no checking of lap bars, the ride vehicle is large enough - and the ride smooth and flat enough (which I assume it is, since no trackless ride yet has dealt with slopes) - for it to be a free roaming pod.

I've always thought this was the solution to Disneyland's submarine ride, which is a great ride marred by an awful loading and unloading procedure. Seat-less rides like this are relatively rare. For one, they are a lot more work. Because a guest is allowed the freedom to look any direction she chooses, the sets thus have to be more elaborate and more immersive all around the ride vehicle. Second, the ride vehicles have to be relatively large, the London Eye capsules are eight by four meters and can fit 25 people. But when done well you get...well, you get the Rivers of America, which this is replacing (isn't it ironic?).

I also don't think it would work with an "everybody on/everybody off" attitude. Guests should be allowed to stay at the mid-ride stop for as long as they would like to explore it. When they're ready, just hop on the next pod outta there.

 

[Rob562]

For those who'd like some perspective of the 1500/hr capacity, based on the listing of WDW attraction capacities I found online, 1500 would put it around the same as the Theoretical Hourly Capacity of Big Thunder (1500) Kilimanjaro Safaris (1400) and Mission Space and Soarin (1600 each, though it's unclear if that's before or after Soarin Theater 3)
That number is better than attractions such as Splash (1200) and Test Track (1200).

Obviously the Omnimover/boat rides will have the highest capacities: Mansion and Pirates (3200), but "thrill" rides can still have high capacity, like Space Mountain (2000), Tower of Terror (2000) and Dinosaur (2400).

-Rob

 

[marni1971]

The concept art for DL indicates the land has different elevations at different parts -- so it would make some sense that you might enter the Alcatraz ride on one level and switch elevations during the ride and get off at a different level......... I'm glad to see @JediMasterMatt seem to concur that Miceage's numbers being off (though I hope the Falcon ride is more like 1800/hr than 1500).

Entry and exit will be on the same level for both versions.
Though one will have guests changing levels after entering the building and before exiting. Aside from some queue differences both versions of both rides will the the same.

18-1900 for both attractions is a good figure. Around 2000 on a good day. Which is still in the lower end of acceptable.

 

[YodaMan]

For those who'd like some perspective of the 1500/hr capacity, based on the listing of WDW attraction capacities I found online, 1500 would put it around the same as the Theoretical Hourly Capacity of Big Thunder (1500) Kilimanjaro Safaris (1400) and Mission Space and Soarin (1600 each, though it's unclear if that's before or after Soarin Theater 3)
That number is better than attractions such as Splash (1200) and Test Track (1200).

Obviously the Omnimover/boat rides will have the highest capacities: Mansion and Pirates (3200), but "thrill" rides can still have high capacity, like Space Mountain (2000), Tower of Terror (2000) and Dinosaur (2400).

-Rob

I'm fairly certain Safaris has a much higher capacity than 1400

 

[180º]

For the sake of guests, to get as many people on and off the ride as possible, I hope these attractions have good theoretical hourly rider counts.

Additionally, I'm curious how many guests one of these attractions will hold at once. For physically small parks like Disneyland and DHS, this is important too. I posted this when Frozen Ever After opened, explaining why I think the "amount of guests a facility can contain at any given time" factor (no acronym for that yet. AOGAFCCAAGTF?) is important.

Hourly rider count is the only thing that determines the speed of the attraction's wait, and that's what Frozen desperately needs.

But broadly speaking, THRC alone does not a high-capacity attraction make. Though you usually see a correlation, there are exceptions. The amount of people an attraction can hold at any given time is a virtue of capacity that I think is under-appreciated. For an extreme example, if FEA were a fifteen second long ride dispatching boats at fifteen second intervals and running two boats at a time, you'd double the theoretical hourly rider count but also cut the amount of guests it can hold to about a fifth.

Now for a real-world example. Kilimanjaro Safaris is a high capacity attraction with a modest hourly rider count. With a theoretical 1400 riders per hour, it's not one of the fastest loading attractions. However, the ride is 22 minutes long, and therefore can hold nearly 520 guests at any given time. Compare this to POTC at the Magic Kingdom which has a THRC of 3200 but with an 8:30 duration holds 450 guests at any given time in the best conditions. Kilimanjaro Safaris, while loading not even half as fast as POTC, holds more guests. However many guests are not riding one attraction at a given time are guests that are not otherwise taking up space in the paths or in line for an attraction. High THRC is good for the ride, but high overall capacity of a ride is good for the park. There's more to capacity than THRC.

End tangent. But as I said, yes, Frozen Ever After only desperately needs higher THRC to cut down that massive wait.

The last bit, "However many guests are not riding one attraction at a given time are guests that are not otherwise taking up space in the paths or in line for an attraction," is painfully evident when Pirates of the Caribbean is down at Disneyland. That thing not only gets guests onto the ride fast, it holds them in there for fifteen minutes. Without it, it's probably akin to closing all the Fantasyland dark rides at once. All those people have to go somewhere.

If WDI had to re-learn the importance of THRC, mustn't they also consider this other factor of capacity? Or do they already, and we just don't hear about it? It seems like we only ever talk about throughput of guests, and not the actual dispersement of guests around the park. I'd be curious to get others' thoughts on this.

EDIT: Just noticed we're discussing Kilimanjaro Safaris. Look at my example in the quoted post above.

 

[Mike S]

Nobody seems to have mentioned the most logical solution: You don't sit down in the ride vehicle. It would work the same way as modern day Ferris wheels' like the London Eye or the Las Vegas High Roller. Vehicles are continually cycling through a boarding area. Guests pile on. There's a limit to how many guests each vehicle can hold, but otherwise operators simply keep loading until the vehicle reaches the edge of the platform. There's not a particular worry to fill seats and certainly no need to herd guests into orderly "rows," as another vehicle comes promptly behind. When loading is finished, door closes and off it goes. There's no checking of lap bars, the ride vehicle is large enough - and the ride smooth and flat enough (which I assume it is, since no trackless ride yet has dealt with slopes) - for it to be a free roaming pod.

I've always thought this was the solution to Disneyland's submarine ride, which is a great ride marred by an awful loading and unloading procedure. Seat-less rides like this are relatively rare. For one, they are a lot more work. Because a guest is allowed the freedom to look any direction she chooses, the sets thus have to be more elaborate and more immersive all around the ride vehicle. Second, the ride vehicles have to be relatively large, the London Eye capsules are eight by four meters and can fit 25 people. But when done well you get...well, you get the Rivers of America, which this is replacing (isn't it ironic?).

I also don't think it would work with an "everybody on/everybody off" attitude. Guests should be allowed to stay at the mid-ride stop for as long as they would like to explore it. When they're ready, just hop on the next pod outta there.

Except there's concept video from the Disneyland 60 special that shows everyone seated.

 

[yeti]

Is there any word on how thrilling we can expect Alcatraz to be? Will there be a height requirement?

 

[Rob562]

I'm fairly certain Safaris has a much higher capacity than 1400

You're right. I calculated it myself based on Touring Plans' stated 18-second dispatch and got 6400.

-Rob

 

[choco choco]

Except there's concept video from the Disneyland 60 special that shows everyone seated.

I know. And if they're having ops problems getting that concept to work, that's why I suggested a possible more logical solution.

 

[RSoxNo1]

For those who'd like some perspective of the 1500/hr capacity, based on the listing of WDW attraction capacities I found online, 1500 would put it around the same as the Theoretical Hourly Capacity of Big Thunder (1500) Kilimanjaro Safaris (1400) and Mission Space and Soarin (1600 each, though it's unclear if that's before or after Soarin Theater 3)
That number is better than attractions such as Splash (1200) and Test Track (1200).

Obviously the Omnimover/boat rides will have the highest capacities: Mansion and Pirates (3200), but "thrill" rides can still have high capacity, like Space Mountain (2000), Tower of Terror (2000) and Dinosaur (2400).

-Rob

Most of those numbers are wrong, and some aren't remotely close.

 

[RSoxNo1]

While we know this wasn't a WDI concept, the warring coaster concept that Disney And More talks about in the article below could be an inspiration for the Battle attraction.

http://disneyandmore.blogspot.com/2011/05/all-about-incredible-star-wars-warring.html