Originally Posted By oc_dean Over at Walt Disney World where the Peoplemover/TTA continues to run to the delight of millions each year ... It's hard to see it wiz by, and *blend* in as part of the land's architecture. (Being covered by one continues roof .. with cars that have a low profile.) But here's where a Disneyland system (that is a different type of track layout altogether) can be seen at nearly any vantage point on the ground. And be the "star" system over it's sister park in Florida. And can you all just imagine the sleek, colorful trains that be seen in full? No obstructions like WDW's? It's not so easy looking around Google as I thought ... as I want to pick out all kinds of sleek, futuristic looking examples. But we all have pretty fantastic imaginations. There are so many shapes and designs to imagine. But just try to imagine 4 cars per train. Lots of color just like the "1967" version. But radically different in so many ways .. that a new one cannot be compared to the old. Imagine what you want. White accents. Brushed metal surface trims, chrome trims .. whatever comes to mind. Something much more sleeker than that boxy design first dreamed up in the early 60s. Some kind of look that you would have never thought Tomorrowland could ever have. I like to imagine trains that look the same, but have different "gizmos"(!!) hidden in the under carriage. Maybe a whole train, or make each car a bit different from the other... Like the SunWheel over at DCA .... where one gondola is stationary, another semi semi swinging, another full swinging... imagine the same premise .. with something the more thrill seekers can play with .. while grandma and dad who just had knee surgery can relax in the full stationary car. Something simple like a 360 swinging axel with an interactive control piece in each car, like Buzz Lightyear/Tea Cups/Roger Rabbit. ______________________ For any imagineer who has had the interest to read this topic from the beginning to now .... do the world a favor..... Give us a ride that SO many people are going to end up enjoying. Don't forget the Peoplemover had a capacity of 4,880 people per hour. That's twice that of Pirates! I think when it comes down to it... 99 out of 100 people are going to appreciate it. Give the world a new Peoplemover system. Don't let a few cynics ruin it for the rest of us. And more to the point, don't let the bean counters within the co. talk you out of it. We need to have some serious faith in an abandoned track that has sat empty for too long. Six years. thx
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I hate to be so cynical, but I just don't see what's so fascinating about the Peoplemover. Honestly, these systems aren't as rare or as unusual as is being suggested here. I know it'll never happen (well, never say never I guess), but I'd prefer it if they'd put something zippier like Rocket Rods on the tracks.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>but I'd prefer it if they'd put something zippier << Good point. But then we get into the debacle of seperating families. (Thrill rides). This age group here .. that age group over there.... Though not every "family" unit is going to manage to stay together all day ... I think one of the guiding principles behind Disneyland .... is that it is a park where groups CAN stay together.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>I hate to be so cynical, but I just don't see what's so fascinating about the Peoplemover.<< I think the key word at this point is: Fun The fact that it is also more than just a ride all by itself ... that it does meander in and outside of attractions - getting a preview.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >> Honestly, these systems aren't as rare or as unusual as is being suggested here.<< Well .. in the handful (and I mean HANDful) of systems within the continental United Sates .... they are usually pretty big, bulky, industrial sized ugly BOXES. There's nothing sleek or "futuristic" about them at all. I think what's important to understand about DL's former system ... Is that (1)it was an overhead system high above .. making their (2) way in and out of buildings. (3) For as "boxy" their 40 year old design was .... Is still futuristic looking compared to anything that came along in the 70s to 90s in the real world. What few systems that have been developed .. usually are pretty mundane looking ... nearly or completely ground level. Riding from station to station ... STILL not the most efficient way of getting in and around towns/cities. The point of DL's .. It could take you right into whatever building you needed to get to. The few late 20th Century examples ... drop you off at some station .. and how you get to where you actually need to get to is your problem.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I think one of the guiding principles behind Disneyland .... is that it is a park where groups CAN stay together." Oh, is that what they were thinking when they built Space Mountain?
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "...they are usually pretty big, bulky, industrial sized ugly BOXES. There's nothing sleek or "futuristic" about them at all." Well of course. Those systems aren't being showcased to be "sold" to the public, therefore there is no point in dressing them up to look "futuristic". Nevertheless, the technology and usage are the essentially the same. I urge you to try out the new peoplemover system the next time you are in New York's JFK Airport. It's very impressive and has an extensive run far beyond the airport's boundaries.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Oh, is that what they were thinking when they built Space Mountain?<< Good point!! But I think 3 decades now of a few thrills has presented their lessons which must be looked at, when and if, Disney wants to go down the path of a another thrill for the "mk" parks: 1. Look at the accident rate on their coaster rides. We know 'the three' that happened with BTMRR. Then there was the one on Space Mountain in early 2003 which made them close it earlier that year. Good thing no one was in the vehicle at the time. Then we have Mission:Space which has been an entirely huge story of it's own. It seems any time they want to do a thrill ride ... Not only does the accident rate jump up significantly, so does the maintanance cost to keep them 99.99% accident free. It seems the slower, more docile rides are less expensive to operate and maintain in the long term. A big plus in favor of a new Peoplemover. One thing to look at with any thrill attraction that has g-forces that thrust you hard into your seat ....... Over at attractions like Star Tours and Indiana Jones ... those sensations are only simulated with a tilt here, and a tilt there. Not quite as hard on the organs as latteral thrusts rides do.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Incidentally ... a family member of mine, 72 years old was in WDW a couple weeks ago. Stayed away from Everest, Space Mountain, BTMRR, Mission:Space ... but rode Star Tours and Dinosaur without any problem.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Look at the accident rate on their coaster rides." I think at least two people were killed on the Peoplemover during its run at Disneyland. Nevertheless, I get your point.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>I think at least two people were killed on the Peoplemover during its run at Disneyland<< They also crawled out against their better judgement. Can't say that with Marcelo Torres regarding BTMRR.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>therefore there is no point in dressing them up to look "futuristic"<< Why not? As Wangaroa would say ..... Nowha I'm sayin'? >>Nevertheless, the technology and usage are the essentially the same. << Well, yeah ... but so far, No city has yet to utilize them in a bold way ... the way Tommorrowland's conveyed ... 40 long years ago. In some ways people can declare the concept is no longer futuristic. But the practical, real-world reality is .... They are hardly anywhere to be seen. For many US cities ... it's still in their far-off future. And in that sense ... Peoplemovers are still "futuristic"! >>I urge you to try out the new peoplemover system the next time you are in New York's JFK Airport. It's very impressive and has an extensive run far beyond the airport's boundaries.<< Hey .. thanks for the heads-up .. Someday I'll check it out. I have no immediate plans to be flying through JFK .. but someday. And .. unfortunately .. there lies the problem that unless a person travels through JFK on a regular basis is ever going to see it. When something is built .. and traveling from one end of Manhattan to the other ... then I will shut meesa mouth!
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt “Why not?†My guess is that the added cost makes it prohibitive. Besides, I doubt if most people care what the things look like. I think that safety, cleanliness, and reliability are far more important to commuters and developers than futuristic styling. â€Well, yeah ... but so far, No city has yet to utilize them in a bold way ... the way Tommorrowland's conveyed ... 40 long years ago. In some ways people can declare the concept is no longer futuristic. But the practical, real-world reality is .... They are hardly anywhere to be seen. For many US cities ... it's still in their far-off future. And in that sense ... Peoplemovers are still "futuristic"!†And I suppose that in that sense the specific Tomorrowland concept is not only futuristic in the broadest sense, but obsolete as well. On the other hand, outside of the LA/Orange County region, there are more than a few good examples of modern rail systems that utilize technology similar to what was proposed in Tommorrowland circa 1967. BART, for instance, is an elaborate fully automated rail system that’s been running since 1972. BTW, if NYC is too far, come up to San Francisco and check out the nifty peoplemover system at SFO. Again, these are REAL systems, running in the REAL world, carrying REAL passengers. They’re not conceptual ideas for a world’s fair or theme park. "When something is built .. and traveling from one end of Manhattan to the other ... then I will shut meesa mouth!" Ain't gonna happen. So, I guess I'll let you have this one.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I would like to point out another factor in the thrill vs family ride debate. Although there are certainly exepctions to this rule (the trains, PeopleMover, POTC, HM, iasw, COP/AS), the thrill rides tend to have a higher capacity than other rides. Although there may be ways to give Peter Pan the same capacity as Big Thunder, there has been no effort made to do so. Even the new Subs will have capacity issues that will most likely cause long lines for several years. I don't know if it would be enough to decide which attraction gets built, but I'm sure that capacity plays a role in the matter to some capacity (pun intended). "We know 'the three' that happened with BTMRR." What are the three being noted here? I can only think of two of them: the crash in 2003 and the boy who got his foot run over in the late 90's (which was really no fault of the ride). What would the third one be?
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<When something is built .. and traveling from one end of Manhattan to the other ... then I will shut meesa mouth! >> It's called the subway. I think of Segways as another attempt at a transportation solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. The Segway is a neato futuristic gadget, but it's too expensive and has limited applications. A PM is the same thing, IMO. Walt envisioned the PM as a local service, and the monorail as a longer distance one. In other words, the PM was designed to solve the "problem" of walking... Walt's idea of the future was completely push-button and automated, like how it is in the cartoon The Jetsons. You want to reduce dependency on cars, and gain quiet, efficient, environmentally friendly transportation for short distances of say, less than five miles, and do it dirt cheap? Get everyone on bicycles!
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>It's called the subway.<< Yeah I know .. but someday the needs are going to demand more than the current subways that have been in existance since around 1900. I'll give it another 100 years .. and NYC is going to have to add on more by creating overhead systems to help the load with the systems running under ground. >>Besides, I doubt if most people care what the things look like. << I understand where you are coming from Hans ... but you know ... Walt could have thought the same thing and said.... "Eh, people won't care about theming. I'll just give them a simple amusement park in that orange grove over there." Or Detroit could just be dishing out automobiles that could look like boxes drawn out of "South Park". But instead, we have something called 'style'. A look at some cool styling in just one of THOUSANDS of representations... The 1961-63 Ford Thunderbird: <a href="http://www.mathewscollection.com/former/Former_63_Thunderbird.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mathewscollection.c om/former/Former_63_Thunderbird.htm</a> Who says that only cars can look sexy, but mass transit systems can't? >>I think that safety, cleanliness, and reliability are far more important to commuters and developers than futuristic styling.<< I don't see any reason why all that can be incorporated some day. I hardly think transportation developers, lets say in 2106, are going to be thinking in simple mid 20th Century terms. Things have a way of evolving and changing. An off-the-wall example..... I'm sure travelers on the Mauretania weren't thinking that they could be playing music playing on little tiny things called Ipods on the boat deck where they were getting their favorite piano concerto, AND more choices, AND in decent fidelity. Granted an Ipod and a Peoplemover system covering many miles are two different things, but I think you get my point that styling eventually comes along .. as it did from the automobile's infant stage, such as Ford's Model-T to present day cars. >>And I suppose that in that sense the specific Tomorrowland concept is not only futuristic in the broadest sense, but obsolete as well.<< Doesn't mean that certain issues can't eventually be worked out to apply in the real world. But it's going to take three essential things ..... For people to think outside of this immediate cynical era we are living in right now. 2)Faith, and 3) Time. But time will start running out .. when we find ourselves where the freeways are so gridlocked (as if they aren't already), and something is going to have to be developed. And it ain't gonna be teleportation! I think we'll achieve warp drive before our bodies (along with our souls inside) are broken down and reassembled in another location.
Originally Posted By oc_dean And please excuse me with a little awkward overlapping in the paragraph above where I tried to give a general example of Progress, and my example when it comes to styling in automobiles and other transport formats.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>On the other hand, outside of the LA/Orange County region, there are more than a few good examples of modern rail systems that utilize technology similar to what was proposed in Tommorrowland circa 1967. BART, for instance, is an elaborate fully automated rail system that’s been running since 1972.<< Haven't been to S.F. in many years. But in my last trip, I did try out BART. I took it from downtown SF to Berkeley. To me ... It's a great SUBWAY system. But not a glamorous looking OVERHEAD system. I think you said Hans, at somewhere here on the boards that BART does travel outside in some spots ... but OHHHH, I think if there were sections in the main city where it blends in with the city's "architecture" .. then I'd be pretty blown away. But that's just my gripe .... that the best a few cities can do is underground (subway) ... or level ... like the Muni trains.
