Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 59 of 59
  1. #46

    • 88 mph
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Irvine, CA 10 miles from DL
    Posts
    808

    Re: How about replacing the parking lot trams with the Peoplemover?

    ^ To add further 1313 Harbor, I envy the fact that you believe so strongly in Computers never failing. Err, you do know all the motors are dependant on that computer functioning correctly 100% of the time.


    "Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary... Impossible is nothing."
    -Adidas
    Quote Originally Posted by KISSman View Post
    In the grand scope of life, there's nothing actually cool about being knowledgeable about an amusement park.

  2. #47

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    276

    Re: How about replacing the parking lot trams with the Peoplemover?

    Now, before everyone out there comes crashing down on how unfeasable what I'm about to say is; let me just say that for right now trams are the best solution for moving people between the parking structure and the parks.

    With that said, let's consider another option, a hybrid system that uses less trams and a peoplemover system in combination.

    Disneyland's Peoplemover reputedly had a capacity of 3,000 guests per hour; and if properly designed, a new system could possibly have a higher capacity. This extra capacity (but not the EXACT same system, for issues all ready brought up) would be great for park opening and closing. And since you are still running trams, the accessibility is still there for whoever needs it. In other words, guests would have a choice of which transportation option to take, peoplemover or tram. If they cannot take the peoplemover for whatever reason, they (and their party) would take the tram.

    If (when) there is a breakdown of one system (trams or peoplemover) you all ready have an operating backup to keep guests moving while repairs are made and/or more trams are brought online.

    During non-peak hours, the need for transportation to and from the parking structure would be lower, and with two systems more trams could be taken offline. This would save on labor and maintenance without adversely affecting guests. But again, if (when) a system breaks down, guests will still be moving (albeit more slowly) until repairs are made and/or more trams come online.

    Like I said, for now, the trams are the best solution. However, if a peoplemover were to be added, I believe that a hybrid system using a peoplemover and less trams would be an effective solution.

  3. #48

    • .
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,923

    Re: How about replacing the parking lot trams with the Peoplemover?

    As for Gracey's electric vehicle thing, the problem with that is that there aren't electric motors strong enough for the rediculous amount of torque those trams need.
    The best bet would be to use biodeisel, maybe even renewable from the cooking oil in the restaurants.

  4. #49

    • .
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,923

    Re: How about replacing the parking lot trams with the Peoplemover?

    Quote Originally Posted by AEGuy42 View Post
    Good ideas but...
    But there is no need for Disney to do this. Those trams are (1.) Mass transit vehicles (for you public transit people) and (2.) Massively efficient.
    No need.

  5. #50

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    374

    Re: How about replacing the parking lot trams with the Peoplemover?

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterGracey View Post
    Bigger - sounds good.
    Enclosed - sounds good.
    Faster - No way.

    A faster Peoplemover means having to slow down or completely stop the vehicles completely in order to get on them. This would essentially mean a very large back-up of vehicles at the load/unload stations. It's not practical. The Peoplemover vehicles need to move consistantly at the same speed and a slow enough speed that would allow guests to climb aboard their perpetually moving vehicle without causing the thing to have to stop.

    Also, how would a seperate station for hadicapped guests work? Just because they're on thier own load/unload platform doesnt mean having to stop or drastically slow down the vehicles for them would not affect all the other vehicles moving on the same track. And if you're suggesting the handicap guests have their own track completely - well, thats a HUGE investment and maitenance costs for a small fraction of Guests.

    I think the trams are the best option. It would be wise to convert the trams to electric vehicles though. It's possible, and would certainly be more cost-effective for Disney and score them some emissions points.
    What I'm saying is that at each big station, the PM vehicles would divert to multiple loading platforms. At the end of the station, all the loading platform tracks would converge again. This would help prevent a back-up of vehicles if the PM goes fast on the main track, but has to slow down at the station. MULTIPLE LOADING PLATFORMS at the same station. And one of those loading platforms could accomodate handicapped guests.

  6. #51

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    54

    Re: How about replacing the parking lot trams with the Peoplemover?

    It's certainly an interesting idea. One thing I've always found peculiar is with both the Monorail, it's not really "automated". There was always CMs around slowing down the whole process. The design of the train didn't really facilitate real transportation, it felt more like a ride. At least, compared to our Automated Light Rail "SkyTrain" here in Vancouver. Disneyland's Monorail is really dated.

    What I'm trying to say is if they were to put a PeopleMover system in, it would have to be a real form of transportation that is automated. If they could pull that off, it would certainly speed up travel to the park and reduce the number of CMs required to man that whole aspect of the operation. And there's definitely no way that it would ever be un-enclosed; that's *way* too risky. One point I didn't think about though is the strollers which always slow down everything.

    Anyways, I know if Disney really wanted to, they could pull it off. However, as cool as it would be, considering the shape the "resort" is in right now, I don't think it would be the best use of their cash.
    - Paul

  7. #52

    • MiceAge Columnist
    • Dateline Disneylander
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Disneyland, U.S.A.
    Posts
    8,139

    Re: How about replacing the parking lot trams with the Peoplemover?

    Quote Originally Posted by wave789 View Post
    What I'm saying is that at each big station, the PM vehicles would divert to multiple loading platforms. At the end of the station, all the loading platform tracks would converge again. This would help prevent a back-up of vehicles if the PM goes fast on the main track, but has to slow down at the station. MULTIPLE LOADING PLATFORMS at the same station. And one of those loading platforms could accomodate handicapped guests.
    I still fail to see how multiple loading platforms would help. When it's all said and done, vehicles STILL have to slow down at the (multiple) loading station(s), which would undoubtedly cause a backup of the vehicles on the normal, faster-moving track, which would end up slowing down the entire system... I dont know... I just don't see it working...

    Photos, news, and commentary every week from Walt Disney's Magic Kingdom!

    | | |

  8. #53

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,020

    Re: How about replacing the parking lot trams with the Peoplemover?

    Quote Originally Posted by wave789 View Post
    What do you think?
    Some sharp pencil guy in TDA finance will ask the dreaded question: What is the ROI? And that will be the end of it.

  9. #54

    • The pride is back.
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Favavia
    Posts
    795

    Re: How about replacing the parking lot trams with the Peoplemover?

    I see this as a big non-issue. There's really nothing wrong with the tram system, is there? Not when you compare it with the expense and possible woes of a Peoplemover that visitors would have to depend on.

    I say put some moving sidewalks in the parking structure before you start messin' with the trams.

  10. #55

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lakewood, California, United States
    Posts
    4,540

    Re: How about replacing the parking lot trams with the Peoplemover?

    How about replacing the track above tomorrowland with peoplemovers!

  11. #56

    • The pride is back.
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Favavia
    Posts
    795

    Re: How about replacing the parking lot trams with the Peoplemover?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soulquarian View Post
    How about replacing the track above tomorrowland with peoplemovers!
    Oh, now you're just being silly.

  12. #57

    •   
      MiceChat Round-Up Crew
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    exit 474B on I-5
    Posts
    3,242

    Re: How about replacing the parking lot trams with the Peoplemover?

    I like the idea in concept. It's the kind of challenge that would be given to imagineers back in the day.

    The peoplemover moved pretty quickly out on the open track, but slowed to a creep in the station where the trains appeared to form a continuous chain of cars.

    With a slow enough creep, wide door openings, and adequate floor space, standard strollers and wheelchairs could be accomodated. And it probably would be a good idea to continue to run trams as an alternative, backup system, or overflow during peak times.
    Have bicycle, will ride. Finished 2012 with 10,089 miles, 683 hours, and 482,000 feet of elevation gain.
    2013: 201 rides, 8171 miles, 544 hours, 480K feet.
    2014 so far: 7846 miles, 451,000 feet


  13. #58

    • Junior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    27

    Re: How about replacing the parking lot trams with the Peoplemover?

    Whats failed to be mentioned so far is that regardless of which system would offer higher capacity, The Disneyland Resort does not operate tram service at 100% capacity on purpose, ever, due to the bottlenecks this would create at checkpoint charlie, the ticket booths and the main entrance. Is the trams were run at 100% capacity (which Disneyland is perfectly capable of doing) you'd never, ever, wait for tram, period, no matter how many Guests were arriving with you. The problem would be checkpoint charlie would be backed up to the AMC theaters.

  14. #59

    • official corn dog taster
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Burbank
    Posts
    822

    Re: How about replacing the parking lot trams with the Peoplemover?

    i have grown fond of the exaust smell of the trams...it means i am going to disneyland!!!

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. [Chat] How Can the Parking Lot Trams Be Upgraded For Added Fun?
    By Ride Warrior in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 11:34 PM
  2. Anyone in parking, specifically trams?
    By tj9991 in forum Break Room
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-17-2009, 10:00 PM
  3. [Chat] Trams that don't move
    By Sillyup10 in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 08:37 PM
  4. PeopleMover-to-Parking Garage Idea
    By mp3piratesavvy in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-03-2005, 01:08 PM
  5. Trams and Parking at Disneyland
    By revol yensid in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 05-23-2005, 08:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •