Disney California Adventure Project Tracker 12

[AtomicBear]

The safety designs of the Red Car might also come into play if they have performers doing tricks on and around them as well.

[flynnibus]

Just because some aren't aware of the impact of these changes mean on the perception guests have doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So much is done and chosen in ways that most guests don't even realize.

For instance.. the door height.

Have you ever noticed that when you must climb up/down into something to board it.. it seems so much different.. vs just walking across a threshold? It's not just the extra activity required that makes it stand out to you.. it's the difference in behavior.. and it may strike memories of other similar experiences. Just the very notion of having to climb UP into something vs moving horizontally into it is a significant way you can twist the guest.

Ever take a look at the DLR trains from the ground level vs on the platform? Doesn't the ground level seem so much more impressive in scale?

There are design elements here that people are all too easy to dismiss because they simply don't recognize their impact or use.

[Ryancr78]

After reviewing those 725 images very carefully I still think the final RCT design looks great. I have yet to see any Disney creation completely match the concept art in its final design.

[TylerDurden]

I think they're great considering the safety precautions needed--in this day and age we're lucky to be getting moving vehicles running down the middle of a pedestrian walkways at all (Jolly Trolley, anyone?). I think it's safe to say the majority of park guests won't even notice anything strange about them anyways, nor have enough of an acute understanding of..ahem...trolley history...to make anything seem out of theme

[WildForMrToad]

Can we get back to the main point, why the "flying tires" look nothing like the concept art

I mean i saw this billboard and was like "what they have wings?!!!"


Now on the video im like "uhhhhhh? wheres the wings?"
Instead of wings we got these unbearable tall "lawyer approved" railings!

Way to ruin the magic Disney once again


Oh by the way this was purely a joke so please dont take me too seriously

xoxoxo WILDFORMRTOAD

[Trevor]

Just because some aren't aware of the impact of these changes mean on the perception guests have doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So much is done and chosen in ways that most guests don't even realize.

For instance.. the door height.

Have you ever noticed that when you must climb up/down into something to board it.. it seems so much different.. vs just walking across a threshold? It's not just the extra activity required that makes it stand out to you.. it's the difference in behavior.. and it may strike memories of other similar experiences. Just the very notion of having to climb UP into something vs moving horizontally into it is a significant way you can twist the guest.

Ever take a look at the DLR trains from the ground level vs on the platform? Doesn't the ground level seem so much more impressive in scale?

There are design elements here that people are all too easy to dismiss because they simply don't recognize their impact or use.

I don't see the link between the trollies and your point as clearly as you state it. The fact is that justified safety measures were designed into these trollies in order to keep guests safe. To do so, the wheels and undercarriage were enclosed. The scale has not been impacted.

[flynnibus]

I don't see the link between the trollies and your point as clearly as you state it.

Re-read the first sentence. The rest was just an example of how choices made impact the guest experience in ways many don't even realize and the significance isn't as obvious as a paint color, a antique, a font, etc.

Imagine if you boarded the nemo subs not by climbing on top of a boat in the water and climbing down into it from above.. but instead you went below the water line through an enclosed staircase on land. The suspense/thrill of climbing down into the submarine would be dramatically impacted. You could get to the same place using both ways.. but the impact is entirely different.

Same can be said of simple trains. Board a train from a platform level with the door.. and then board a train where you have to climb up from ground level. The former will just seem so bland and average.. where the latter will feel adventurous and so different from average life.

These variances are important and lost on so many... yet they represent choices made in all design that help differentiate between something you have this draw too.. vs something that just bores you.

[BiggestDisneyFan]

Have you ever spent significant time in a city with a modern street car or light rail system? Maybe it's simply because I'm more exposed to them than you have been. Our thought processes are not uniform, they are shaped in part by what we are surrounded by. You may see someone and think it reminds you of your father... I may see the same person and not see the association at all. It doesn't make your association wrong or unique only to you.. its shaped by those who have been exposed to it.

Maybe you just haven't been exposed to these things to make the association as strongly?

To be honest, I have always lived in an area with a pathetic lack of public transportation. However, you were expressing an assumption of everybody feeling the same as you - hence saying that items reminded 'you' (others included), rather than just 'me' (just yourself) of other things. That is what I had issue with, and what you wrote here does not invalidate that. Again, you appear to assume that others with some familiarity with light rail public transit systems will agree with you about the circumstances around the final RCT design, and that only those who lack such familiarity would disagree. Maybe that is not what you intend to convey, but that is how I perceive it.

But that's exactly what it's for - to help prevent lawsuits.

*cough* You could read and justifications and make your own conclusions.. *cough*

Do you not see the evolution of the design from artisit effort to 'operational effort'?

What I see is the evolution of design from what the artists designed to what was deemed acceptable by those who are responsible for the operation of the product in a (unfortunately) real world. Art/craft, in and of itself is wonderful and can take any form, but when it is part of something that has to be put to actual use around people, it has to meet compromise for usability and safety.

The changes are directly for safety, but not because its required to safety operate, but because it makes it 'more safe' to protect against human stupidity

Huh? Do you not see this as you making two completely contradictory statements. Whether or not the humans involved here are stupid, makes no practical difference. People are how they are, so 'required to safely operate' is the same as protecting against human stupidity. Disney covering it's butt, certainly plays into it, but I think it is unnecessarily cynical to assume that it is the sole motivation here. Besides, stupidity doesn't even remotely account for a vast number of accidents - especially in a place where large numbers of children are to be found.

Maybe I aspire to a world where we don't live in fear of accidents and overreact to them when they do happen. I know.. a tough dream.. but I can dream

To some extent, I agree with you on this. However, what some consider overreaction may legitimately be seen as a justified reaction, to others. No, we cannot proactively prevent any and all accidents, and people do waste a huge amount of time and energy (both theirs and others') trying to do so. In this case, though, I think that wonderful artistic vision and realism had to meet a compromise with real safety concerns.

[DL2006]

Same can be said of simple trains. Board a train from a platform level with the door.. and then board a train where you have to climb up from ground level. The former will just seem so bland and average.. where the latter will feel adventurous and so different from average life.

These variances are important and lost on so many... yet they represent choices made in all design that help differentiate between something you have this draw too.. vs something that just bores you.

I get what you are saying but wouldn't the reason that they are so low to the ground be for ADA accessibility? Im sure there will be some sort of ramp that will have to allow people in wheelchairs to get in right?

Personally I like how they look. Sure they may not be 100% accurate to the original look....but they sure do feel like it and I think that's what counts.

[BiggestDisneyFan]

Same can be said of simple trains. Board a train from a platform level with the door.. and then board a train where you have to climb up from ground level. The former will just seem so bland and average.. where the latter will feel adventurous and so different from average life.

These variances are important and lost on so many... yet they represent choices made in all design that help differentiate between something you have this draw too.. vs something that just bores you.

Again, I believe you are right and wrong here. If the experience could be kept 100% authentic, that would absolutely be ideal, but just because the experience isn't so authentic doesn't mean that the experience is ruined. If it were, then Flyin' Over California wouldn't be nearly so popular. In that attraction, you're not climbing into an airplane or hang-glider. You're walking into a dark room and sitting in rows of suspended seats that couldn't possibly fly.

[brenden]

These variances are important and lost on so many... yet they represent choices made in all design that help differentiate between something you have this draw too.. vs something that just bores you.

So, pray tell, what is your solution for this? Would you be happier if they designed 100% accurate streetcars with some Alice in Wonderlandesque railings all around? Because this isn't a city you've spent significant time in, this is a theme park. A theme park that needs to take safety precautions. Personally, I can appreciate the fact that they designed this from the ground up to incorporate seemingly annoying/unnecessary precautions that aren't applicable in the 'real world.' I just think is the best solution that allows for an attraction like this to even exist in the first place.

[flynnibus]

What I see is the evolution of design from what the artists designed to what was deemed acceptable by those who are responsible for the operation of the product in a (unfortunately) real world. Art/craft, in and of itself is wonderful and can take any form, but when it is part of something that has to be put to actual use around people, it has to meet compromise for usability and safety.

Yet the original design worked for decades in far less controlled environment. Let's keep perspective here.. we aren't talking radical, one off designs. We're talking things that are deemed acceptable in the world outside Disney, now and for the last 100 years. I get this is MORE safe, but the other design isn't UNsafe. Else, how would we allow this deathtrap over on mainstreet?


Which btw.. has had the same step up entrances, open ground clearance, and lack of cow plows for 55+ years in the parks.

Huh? Do you not see this as you making two completely contradictory statements

Because there is a difference between unsafe, safe, and safe for even for idiots. We as a society are running to 'safe even for idiots' because of liability suits and the lack of society forcing government to break this downward spiral.

Disney covering it's butt, certainly plays into it, but I think it is unnecessarily cynical to assume that it is the sole motivation here. Besides, stupidity doesn't even remotely account for a vast number of accidents - especially in a place where large numbers of children are to be found.

I don't seek a world free of accidents - that would be futile. However I dispise a world where we can't have anything because there MIGHT be a chance of something happening or we all must lack because someone with no common sense must be saved as well.

No, we cannot proactively prevent any and all accidents, and people do waste a huge amount of time and energy (both theirs and others') trying to do so. In this case, though, I think that wonderful artistic vision and realism had to meet a compromise with real safety concerns.

And just how far are we going to keep going? While we can't prevent all accidents.. it doesn't seem to stop some people from trying.

---------- Post added 03-08-2012 at 06:43 PM ----------

I get what you are saying but wouldn't the reason that they are so low to the ground be for ADA accessibility? Im sure there will be some sort of ramp that will have to allow people in wheelchairs to get in right?

They could require people to transfer... or require ADA access through specific locations.

---------- Post added 03-08-2012 at 06:46 PM ----------

Again, I believe you are right and wrong here. If the experience could be kept 100% authentic, that would absolutely be ideal, but just because the experience isn't so authentic doesn't mean that the experience is ruined

I didn't say it was ruined.. you are replying to posts that were about people dismissing the stuff as insignificant.. I was elaborating on how details like these are part of the system of elements that make things great or not.

The supporting elements and details are important.. and it's not just about what you see or what antique item was used.

[film975]

Another nice video from the parks. We finally see what looks like a female car for RSR?

That video was awesome. The shots of the Red Car Trolley looked fantastic! And the new shots of the Radiator Springs Racers ride vehicles were great too. Both of these new areas are gonna add a whole lot to the California Adventure.

[imaginashton]

when is Mad T Party supposed to start?

[jsanch2]

So while I was expecting the red car trolly to look more like an elevated train, I didn't realize that the trains that they were based off of were not. After doing some research I learned that the City of San Francisco bought some of the original PCC cars that ran on the Pacific Electric Railway and refurbished them and they currently run on the F-Route which runs along the city's wharfs. Here are some images from the city's website that show the train schematics and the actual train in use.

I feel like the design of the red car trolly looks almost identical to this... with subtle differences that are necessary to the fact that it is running in an operating theme park versus as an active system of pubic transportation