ArmChair Imagineering: Station Type

[Robert Cook]

In theory, the side-by-side (dual-channel) arrangement would be slightly more efficient because a new vehicle could enter each loading/unloading zone as soon as the current one is dispatched, rather than waiting for both to finish, although the difference is fairly minor. The main advantage of the side-by-side arrangement is that if there is a delay in loading or unloading on one side, then the other side can still operate to keep things moving and buy some time to forestall a complete shutdown of the ride (depending on the individual ride). Additionally, it can accommodate much longer vehicles, and is a must for certain rides because of this. To pay for these advantages, this arrangement makes a ride somewhat more difficult to design, takes up more space, has a couple of track/channel switches that could fail, and sometimes makes things less convenient for guests in terms of routing the queue.

The linear arrangement makes a ride simpler to design, build, and maintain. It has very nearly the capacity of the side-by-side arrangement as long as loading and unloading are relatively easy, and it takes up less space. I think that this arrangement is preferable in every instance where the advantages of the side-by-side arrangement are not required. For example, loading and unloading is a relatively easy, foolproof affair in Pirates of the Caribbean, and the boats are of reasonably short length, so there's really no reason to complicate matters with a side-by-side arrangement. This ride also benefits from the linear arrangement in terms of guest convenience and aesthetics. The same argument applies to Splash Mountain.

Rides such as Big Thunder Mountain Railroad and California Screamin' require the side-by-side arrangement because of the length of their vehicles, but a more interesting case in point is Indy, which makes guests walk up and around the queue area when loading and also while unloading on the right side. Why was the side-by-side arrangement chosen for this particular ride when a linear arrangement would seem to be feasible? My guess is that the designers figured that loading and unloading would be a somewhat troublesome affair for a few guests, which in the linear arrangement could result in delays that impact the operation of the ride, and that the side-by-side arrangement could more easily and flexibly accommodate separate zones forward of the loading/unloading zones for checking restraints, resulting in substantially higher capacity (the latter makes this ride both side-by-side and linear, in a way).

[BurtGummer]

Originally Posted by mycroft16

The dispatch time is mandated by the ride design itself. Indy could have been done with a linear and the dispatch times would be the same.

Gotta disagree with you here. A maximum of 9 vehicles can run in Indy when only one station is being used (like weekdays at this time of year). That info is straight from a CM working there.

I rode it a good 20 times on Monday when only one side was being used (North). Dispatch intervals were longer than 18 seconds so the vehicles would be evenly spaced. However, they could not have gone to 18 seconds intervals anyways. Reason being is because of unloading/loading. With 4 seats per row, and the mind boggling seatbelts which buckle RIGHT TO LEFT (sorry had to get that out), it takes longer than 18 seconds to unload and load. When people unload, they also forget how to unbuckle the seatbelts, and have trouble getting their backpacks out of the pouch in front of them. That of course cuts into the 18 seconds. Then the next victims have to come in on that same 18 seconds.

The CMs try to speed it up by allowing the transport to advance to belt check, but people will ignore the "Pleas Remain Seated" announcement made by the CM before it advances, so then they have to capture/stop the transport, eating more time from the alloted 18 seconds. Remember, the 18 seconds for unload/load, and 18 seconds for belt check have to take in account for the 4-5 seconds for the transport to advance to belt check. So if the transports advances after 18 seconds at loading, then belt check has about 13-14 seconds to do their thing before it has to be dispatched.

In addition, it takes longer for Handicap riders to load and unload, and when one side is only running, the transports will usually back up into the rolling boulder scene, depending on how hard/easy it is for the Handicap rider. So, two sides can help prevent back-ups like that. Of course, that doesn't mean that back-ups wont happen if two sides are running.

Also, before they brought back single rider, I would avoid Indy if they were only running one side. It takes ALOT longer, even though you wouldn't think so.

So, when both sides are running, 18 seconds becomes doubled to 36 seconds, a dramatic increase and help for the CMs (and guests).

Also....occasionally one side will be shutdown if there is excessive hydraulic fluid on the station track, and it will be cleaned up real quick. Reason why they care if its in the station is beyond me, because it must also be on the track, but whatever, I've seen them do it before.

Lastly, I talked to an Indy CM about running a full 15 transports on the track, permitting 15 are in working order. The CM said they did it once a few months ago, but only for about an hour because the station couldn't keep up.

[Weekly-Visitor]

Originally Posted by Robert Cook

In theory, the side-by-side (dual-channel) arrangement would be slightly more efficient because a new vehicle could enter each loading/unloading zone as soon as the current one is dispatched, rather than waiting for both to finish, although the difference is fairly minor. The main advantage of the side-by-side arrangement is that if there is a delay in loading or unloading on one side, then the other side can still operate to keep things moving and buy some time to forestall a complete shutdown of the ride (depending on the individual ride). Additionally, it can accommodate much longer vehicles, and is a must for certain rides because of this. To pay for these advantages, this arrangement makes a ride somewhat more difficult to design, takes up more space, has a couple of track/channel switches that could fail, and sometimes makes things less convenient for guests in terms of routing the queue.

The linear arrangement makes a ride simpler to design, build, and maintain. It has very nearly the capacity of the side-by-side arrangement as long as loading and unloading are relatively easy, and it takes up less space. I think that this arrangement is preferable in every instance where the advantages of the side-by-side arrangement are not required. For example, loading and unloading is a relatively easy, foolproof affair in Pirates of the Caribbean, and the boats are of reasonably short length, so there's really no reason to complicate matters with a side-by-side arrangement. This ride also benefits from the linear arrangement in terms of guest convenience and aesthetics. The same argument applies to Splash Mountain.

Rides such as Big Thunder Mountain Railroad and California Screamin' require the side-by-side arrangement because of the length of their vehicles, but a more interesting case in point is Indy, which makes guests walk up and around the queue area when loading and also while unloading on the right side. Why was the side-by-side arrangement chosen for this particular ride when a linear arrangement would seem to be feasible? My guess is that the designers figured that loading and unloading would be a somewhat troublesome affair for a few guests, which in the linear arrangement could result in delays that impact the operation of the ride, and that the side-by-side arrangement could more easily and flexibly accommodate separate zones forward of the loading/unloading zones for checking restraints, resulting in substantially higher capacity (the latter makes this ride both side-by-side and linear, in a way).

Originally Posted by Pipeek

Toy Story and Grizzly do.

The other factor here is operational time and day of the week.

Look at Big Thunder for this. Due to the technology of the ride and computing for the trains to not run into each other; on an weekday in the off season they only run one side. If the load time takes longer than 20 seconds for them, the next train coming in loads on the empty side of the station. If it was a linear system every train would go out full.

This isn't a problem when they operate both sides other than having the attraction go 101 frequently due to this nowadays, but it does cut the riders per hour down a notch in the station type in some cases.

Thank you very much! Both of you make interesting points and have helped me greatly! Again thanks for all the help!

-WV

[filmfreak11]

not sure if it was mentioned, but TOT seems like a vertical "side-by-side" type station.

someone mentioned changing nemo to side by side. i think thats an operational nightmare.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by filmfreak11

not sure if it was mentioned, but TOT seems like a vertical "side-by-side" type station.

someone mentioned changing nemo to side by side. i think thats an operational nightmare.

ToT is like Matterhorn in the sense that it's really three seperate rides in one structure, like Matterhorn has two. So it's not really side by side loading, there is only one vehicle per shaft or "track" and each is independent of the other.