Josh Hendy
Well-Known Member
Imagine if the smoke and steam from the train gets swirling around under the TRON awning (TRAWNing). That could be unpleasant. How is it vented from the other tunnels? (PotC and Splash)?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Tron coaster coming to the Magic Kingdom
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Mike730
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if anyone has staked their name on it, but there are foundations in place in the same/similar locations as Shanghai.
Last edited:
The footprint of TRON in MK, according to the water management blueprints, is exactly the same as Shanghai. And looking at what's being built and where it is, it is comporting with those blueprints.
So... we do know what the sightlines will be minus any attempt to add trees.
corran horn
Well-Known Member
It stained the WEDway track for years and, to be honest, they didn't really spend a lot of time cleaning it.
jmuboy
Well-Known Member
They painted that section black. I was fine with the attempt to address.
BubbaisSleep
Well-Known Member
I'm sure it's been figured out as we've been lucky to have plenty of tunnels over at Disneyland. I'm sure they just woke release the steam during the Tron portion of the train track.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
It doesn’t work like that. There is always a fire in the firebox so there will always be exhaust. And actually the locomotives are working the hardest between fantasyland and Main Street.
BubbaisSleep
Well-Known Member
I figured as I don't know much about trains but I know enough to know they've had this problem handled at Disneyland for decades. Either way, not really a problem.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Steel roller coasters are typically sold ex-works, the parts will be waiting for you at the factory and it is your responsibility to pick them up, get them to your park and assemble them into a coaster. The costs are fairly well known and easier to compare. It makes sense that Disney would have a higher base cost for a very similar roller coaster due to their demanding operating schedule and even location, but they would be easily aware of a large difference and would be able to go elsewhere for a better price.
In terms of vendors, it is actually the opposite when it comes to Disney and Universal. So many want the work that they will struggle to make money because of the prestige of being a Disney or Universal vendor, the scale of the work and promises of more work. @whylightbulb had a good post years ago discussing how Universal used to be particularly adept at squeezing free and discounted work from vendors who used to be responsible for more of the design of the product.
The big problem is the number of people involved and the inability to make decisions. This is not something that is easy to fix because so many stakeholders often became involved in the first place for a reason. There are plenty of stories from across the industry of designs that had to be reworked because they just didn’t work with the realities of operations but could have been avoided if the operating team had been consulted. Of course in a large organization you eventually start to get layers who all want to stay involved. A new store in a land may have someone from that land’s retail team who is directly involved, but he may have a boss who gets a say, and there is probably a person/team at the park level who gets a say, and a person/team at the resort level who gets a say and maybe even someone at the global level who gets a say. That’s a lot of people giving input and as you move up the ladder there is an inverse correlation between degree of involvement and weight of input. Even worse, in too many cases these people further up don’t know how to read design documents so you get Disney building large mock-ups like entire hotel rooms and that is the first time some executives are seeing the design and they can and will reject all of the work that went into it. That means starting over but the project completion date doesn’t change. In The Imagineering Story there is a clip of Iger asking for more trees in Cars Land. I know I and some others laughed at this being highlighted as Iger’s big creative contribution, but depending on when in the process it occurs even something as simple as adding trees can have a ripple effect impacting things like below ground utility locations. Early in the thread I have a post going into the details of all of the potential impacts of moving a toilet. The later in the design process, the bigger the potential ripple of seemingly innocuous changes. It’s not just small things though. Look at Ratatouille where a whole building was moved and a dining venue added after permit drawings were done, submitted and approved. While the actual restroom building itself may not have changed too much, there is still a lot of surrounding work that goes into placing a building. On top of the lost work in the change, that new building had to be rushed through development so that it opening as closely as possible with everything else. Each little change has a cost and Disney will make big changes with a big cost.
Then on the design side increasing specialization increases the number of designers involved. Even in areas where Disney is relying more on vendors, there are design managers supervising their work who are themselves specialists. Disney is also a lot more controlling and involved in outsourced work, so you need more labor to do that greater level of specific and detailed work. This used to be where Universal Creative had a time and cost advantage. They outsourced a lot of work and entrusted their vendors to do a lot of design; they had a small team that more managed than designed. Universal Creative has exploded in size in many of the same ways, the days of an entire attraction being outsourced are over. They could not do another Transformers: The Ride - 3D which required repeating mistakes and cutting out most of the layers of management.
This sort of thing happens to organizations as they grow. It makes sense in a lot of ways but it becomes problematic. For Disney, years of stagnating capacity have become a problem but they are simply incapable of adding the sort of small scale attractions that would really help by offering something to do without inducing more demand. A $100 million C-Ticket just doesn’t make sense. Disney compounds the problem by insisting on leadership without experience. Guardians of the Galaxy - Mission: Breakout! is the direct result of Chapek trying to something done fast and cheap. Even then, he didn’t really repeat the strategy or make drastic changes to Walt Disney Imagineering. Same with Staggs before him. It makes sense though, they wouldn’t know who to cut out of the increasingly complicated process of developing world class attractions. It would take a level of knowledge, responsibility and ownership that could easily go sideways and sink a career.
Last edited:
Kman
Well-Known Member
So has their hotel rates and park fees and that's being kind...still no excuse
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
It shouldn’t be a problem, no. But neither should a fog effect on a 100M coaster. Hopefully they’ve taken everything into account in the design.
corran horn
Well-Known Member
I saw somewhere where Vortex at King's Island was closed down at the end of last year not because it wasn't a draw but because it had ended its expected 25-30 year lifespan. It made me wonder if something like TRON (or Slinky) is made of sterner stuff. They've got to have their lifetimes well past 25 years I figure. (Space Mountain is at least fully covered)
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
They demo'ed Hulk at IoA and rebuilt the same coaster at 20 years. IT runs more than the ones at KI but it was the same. Nightly welding is what WDW does I think.
trainplane3
Well-Known Member
I believe Hulks rebuild was partially due to the Marvel contract. You have B&Ms running that are nearly 10 years older then it but are still plenty fine.
The old Arrows are probably going to start coming down more often now. Most are old and nothing special so it really comes down to maintenance costs. Even ridership isn't enough to save them anymore. But then you have iconic rides like, for example, Viper and Magnum (only a few years younger then Vortex) which will probably stand through the next 5 apocalypse's.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Might have been pushed by the contract but there were structural issues with the footings so it had reached the end of its life. It runs far more than the older coasters at the seasonal parks. It is hours running that determines the lifespan not years in operation.
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
What would the Marvel contract have to do with basically rebuilding the exact same coaster? I think there must have been some extended wear and tear for some reason (I do notice the supports are slightly different).
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
I think he meant the because it was worn the contract requires all Marvel themed to be in good repair as to not hurt the brand.
trainplane3
Well-Known Member
True. I think @Gringrinngghost may know some more about this one.
That's what I was thinking since it was plussed after the rebuild.
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
While it had gotten rough, there's nothing that was there that would have activated that part of the contract. In fact, it's still rough. (I firmly believe they changed the cars but left the original chassis in place).