Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>ORDDU: Not to add fuel to the furnance, but what measures do they have in place to rescue guests from a fire when the monorail becomes stuck like that?<< ORDDU, don't you remember the monorail fire about 16 years ago?? Those people somehow made it to the top of the monorails and waited for fire trucks to be rescued by step ladders. With the current fleet, there are escape hatches that lead to the top of the vehicles, and I was told once that rope step ladders can be deployed from those hatches. Whether that is true, I am not sure. As for fire extinguishers... ride with me and be safe since one of the skills required to do my job is the knowledge to operate several different types of fire extinguishers based on the type of fire involved.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost TDLFAN, I don't mean to fire up anything here (tee hee) but I am curious. If you dislike the monorails as much as you say you do why do you continue to ride them. I use the ferry all the time and I like the monorails but I enjoy the boat trip across. I guess I just don't understand why you keep subjecting yourself to something you seem to dislike so much. Again, I am not trying to be combative, I am just truly curious.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Problems will always occur with an older fleet of anything, no mater how well it was maintained. That is not being a pollyanna just a statement. >>> I can't remember who it was but someone here mentioned something similar to this, and actually went as far as saying that the more breakdowns and interruptions of service there are, the better, as it indicates attention to safety. It seems pretty clear that the WDW monorail system is falling apart, and that it's due to poor maintenance (almost certainly due to a lack of proper funding, not disregard by the workers). Regardless of age, there's no reason that a fleet can't be maintained properly so that it operates safely and reliably. Part of a preventative maintenance regime is to have identified what the service life is of the various components that will wear out and replace them before this happens. Also, inspections are performed to identify prematurely-aged components or components that last indefinately but occasionally become damaged so that those matters can be taken care of before they become service affecting. The cheapest way to do things, especially if there's no direct financial cost for unreliable service, is just to ignore all of the above and "run until failure." What's been described here on many occasions about WDW monorails seems to me to fit into this category. And note that this doesn't necessarily mean that they are not safe.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>ORDDU, don't you remember the monorail fire about 16 years ago?? Those people somehow made it to the top of the monorails and waited for fire trucks to be rescued by step ladders. With the current fleet, there are escape hatches that lead to the top of the vehicles, and I was told once that rope step ladders can be deployed from those hatches.<<< That was on the Epcot route. When I worked at WDW, there was a rumor that someone pulled over their car to take pictures, and was approached by Disney security who paid money in exchange for handing over the film.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "TDLFAN, I don't mean to fire up anything here (tee hee) but I am curious. If you dislike the monorails as much as you say you do why do you continue to ride them. I use the ferry all the time and I like the monorails but I enjoy the boat trip across. I guess I just don't understand why you keep subjecting yourself to something you seem to dislike so much." My guess is that they thought that it might be an OK trip on the Monorail. It sounds like its hit or miss as far as delays go, so I think if I saw the ferry just leave and then saw a waiting monorail, I might get on it too, even knowing it could have delay issues. I don't know the answer, but that's probably what I would have done.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost ^^^That would be OK if this were the first time for TDLFAN but this has been an ongoing complaint and I just wonder why one would subject themselves to it if it wasn't necessary. I don't really care but I sometimes get curious about stuff like that.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << The cheapest way to do things, especially if there's no direct financial cost for unreliable service, is just to ignore all of the above and "run until failure." >> This is a common misconception in maintenance organizations. When different organizations are compared, the costs associated with the different forms of maintenance practices are usually equivalent. In preventive maintenance programs there are cost benefits associated with planned procurement of replacement parts and reduction of some aspects related to catastrophic failure of components. However, a little known fact outside of the maintenance world is that over half of all preventive maintenance is performed incorrectly and contributes to more component failures than if no maintenance had been done at all. Preventive maintenance does have additional costs associated with replacement of some parts and components that never would have failed under any condition -- even though the maintenance plan predicts their failure. Under the "run to failure" mentality (also known as condition based maintenance), there is additional cost associated in the repair of materials that have failed. Having to expedite maintenance actions on a non-scheduled basis to fix failed components is an expensive business. However, the costs associated with correcting poorly executed preventive maintenance actions is eliminated. There are also cost savings associated with not replacing components that do not fail. In the end, it's usually a wash. For organizations that switch from a preventive maintenance plan to a condition based maintenance plan, there are usually cost savings in the initial switch to condition based maintenance. However, once these plans have been in place for several years the cost savings usually shows no difference.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<With the current fleet, there are escape hatches that lead to the top of the vehicles, and I was told once that rope step ladders can be deployed from those hatches>> I am skeptical that they would use rope ladders. They would be nearly impossible to use by an average person.
Originally Posted By spacejockey Could they just get rid of the monorails at WDW? Maybe just build a parking structure on one side of the Magic Kingdom? Last time I was on the monorails they also broke down, dirty and smelled bad. We usually just rent a car at WDW I won't ride the buses either.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss IMO. there would be too many other problems associated with getting rid of the monorails, not the least of which would be the loss of a selling point of the monorail resorts.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Having to expedite maintenance actions on a non-scheduled basis to fix failed components is an expensive business. However, the costs associated with correcting poorly executed preventive maintenance actions is eliminated.< I'm not sure I totally buy this argument. If there is a possibility of improperly executed maintenance, that same possibility exists whether the maintenance was preventive or due to failure. Overall, though, I agree with your assessment - it's not cheaper to wait till failure, especially in an industry like Disney parks where guest comfort and safety are an issue.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder You know what's funny though? When my wife and I got on a WDW monorail for the first time ever a couple of months ago, being used to a lifetime of riding DLR's trains, we said, hey, look how much newer and better these look.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << I'm not sure I totally buy this argument. If there is a possibility of improperly executed maintenance, that same possibility exists whether the maintenance was preventive or due to failure. >> The big difference usually comes in the amount of quality assurance assigned to different maintenance tasks. For one-time maintenance actions that correct failures or deficiencies, it is fairly standard to apply consist quality assurance practices 100% of the time. In preventive maintenance programs, quality assurance is usually built designed so that regularly scheduled maintenance actions are spot-checked, but not on every occasion. The costs associated with quality assurance of every preventive maintenance action, in lieu of spot checks, are not insignificant. Having acted in a quality assurance role, I can attest that I found defects in workmanship and errors in maintenance practices 100% of the times I was assigned to spot-check preventive maintenance actions. I never walked away from a QA spot check without correcting some aspect of the maintenance work. Would all of those deficiencies have led to component failures or additional maintenance? Certainly not, but the mistakes that are made in following maitenance procedures is much larger than most people might suspect.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss That may be true (and as a mechanic and service manager, I have seen a lot of poorly executed work), but a machine that gets NO maintenance whatsoever is bound to fail even sooner. In my experience, an expensive well-engineeered product is worth spending some money on and maintaining it correctly. A cheap and poorly engineered one, however, is generally better off running until failure.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << a machine that gets NO maintenance whatsoever is bound to fail even sooner. >> Which is why there is no such thing as a maintenance program without any preventive maintenance. Even condition based maintenance programs anticipate replacement and maintenance of parts that require more attention than others. It's the maintenance where you tear down a system and put it back together just for the sake of tearing it apart and puttiing it back together again that fall by the wayside in condition based maintenance programs.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip << When my wife and I got on a WDW monorail for the first time ever a couple of months ago, being used to a lifetime of riding DLR's trains, we said, hey, look how much newer and better these look.>> Yes; at least at WDW the monorails are air conditioned (though even with air conditioning they still smell like a bar in Rio de Janeiro).
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> they still smell like a bar in Rio de Janeiro << Wouldn't know -- never been there. And the smell is due to the type of cleaning solutions being used. It's not (necessarily) the lack of cleaning.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I think it is a bit over the top to say that they get NO maintenance. It isn't cost effective to have any breakdowns especially if it requires rescuing people from the rails. Like any other piece of equipment it is breakable and the phrase "preventive" maintenance is thrown around way too easily. At what point do they decide to replace a part that could break. Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Wouldn't it be a huge waste of resources to replace things that don't need replacing in the event that they might need replacing at some point in the life of the equipment? I have been to WDW many times and ridden the monorails often. Never in that time have I experienced any problems with them. Yes, the minor delays coming into the station but no biggie. It is like anything else..the more often you use it the more likely it will be that you are on it when something does go wrong. Basic statistics folks. I have been in the transportation business for many years and I am willing to bet that whatever is breaking down, in all likelihood, are the things that are not predictable. You just cannot replace everything constantly unless you want to go broke. Once in a while one must take reality into account and figure out what makes sense and what doesn't. Life is not all Disney fantasy.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I have been to WDW many times and ridden the monorails often. Never in that time have I experienced any problems with them. Yes, the minor delays coming into the station but no biggie.>> For the most part, neither have I ... BUT (and this is a J-Lo sized butt) there are some major safety issues that WDW management is knowingly ignoring because they don't want to spend the $$$ needed. In light of some of the things I've been told, it's only pure luck you haven't seen flaming tourists jumping off a train with Cindy's Castle, a majestic backdrop for a horrific incident. When CMs have gone to management with their concerns they've been told basicaly to shut up or lose their jobs and CMs with as much as cell-phone cameras have been removed from the roundhouse. So magical, eh? Let's all share the dreams of Jay Rasulo shall we?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<In light of some of the things I've been told, it's only pure luck you haven't seen flaming tourists jumping off a train with Cindy's Castle, a majestic backdrop for a horrific incident.>> Is that a ticketed event or can anyone watch??
