Disney World Monorail Crash

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back to Disney World. I don't know when the Mark VIs were delivered. I'm not suprised at all that SOP hasn't changed though, and I'm sure that the new trains were not any more safe than before. Why would they have to be after 40 fail safe years? It just means more money.
The MARK VI's started to come on line in 1989, with the final train being delivered in 1991.

As for your assertion that the new trains are not any safer than before, you would be wrong. The MARK VI's were built by Bombardier as a production line item. They had hopes of selling them, and therefore the new trains were much safer than before.

Just to name a few safety features, the MARK VI's have a fire detection system, emergency escape hatch in the room, they now fill the tires with nitrogen to reduce the risk of fire (after a fire started by a tire on a MARK IV), and many other things.
 
The Walt Disney World Monorail is a transportation system, not a "ride" per se. However, since it is 100% on private property and doesn't interface with any other mode of transit (like the busses do), I presume that the rules are extremely relaxed. I think OSHA is enough bureaucracy to handle this mess.
I would bet a small amount of money that Disney lists the monorails legally as "Attractions" not transportation. A bus driver once told me that all WDW transportation including the busses are listed as "Attractions" not actual "Transportation" for legal purposes. I'm not sure if this is really true.. but interesting if it is.
 
The Walt Disney World Monorail is a transportation system, not a "ride" per se. However, since it is 100% on private property and doesn't interface with any other mode of transit (like the busses do), I presume that the rules are extremely relaxed. I think OSHA is enough bureaucracy to handle this mess.
I would bet a small amount of money that Disney lists the monorails legally as "Attractions" not transportation. A bus driver once told me that all WDW transportation including the busses are listed as "Attractions" not actual "Transportation" for legal purposes. I'm not sure if this is really true.. but interesting if it is.
1. It has been said that all safety rules are written in blood. It appears that part of the problem was not recognizing that in many ways this is still a railroad. I do agree that complacency probably played a part.

2. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that whether Disney lists this as an attraction or not and whether it is all on Disney property or not will have very little to do with whether or not the NTSB investigates the situation. The state of Florida may do its own as well, although given the huge political clout of Disney there it would likely be fairly meaningless. OHSA or the state could also ask for the NTSB to participate.

3. It is surprising how much damage a relatively low speed collision can do to vehicles. There have been studies that show that both police and bystanders cosistently overestimate collision speeds, usually by a factor of 1.5 to 2 or even more. When looking at the damage on these things, remember there is considerably more mass behind the front end than there would be with a car or bus, which would make the tendency to overestimate collision speeds even worse.
 
The Feds do have jurisdiction. As far as the State is concerned, it is a bit complicated. Walt Disney managed to get the Florida Legislature to give him (the company) actual municipal status - I believe it is the Reedy Creek Development District or some such (circa 1967, I think). Disney actually has the governmental authority of a genuine municipality, giving them, as I understand it, the ability to make their own building codes and basically anything else they want to do, they need no approval from anybody but themselves. I think somebody mentioned on the news tonight that Cinderella's Castle is fiberglass, as an example. But they still can't deny OSHA and probably NTSB access if those federal agencies decide there is something to investigate. My understanding is that OSHA is involved. This is all from local Orlando TV news coverage, since that's where I live.
 
But they still can't deny OSHA and probably NTSB access if those federal agencies decide there is something to investigate. My understanding is that OSHA is involved. This is all from local Orlando TV news coverage, since that's where I live.
OSHA is indeed involved in the investigation, and in fact released the trains back to Disney today around mid-day I understand. Shortly after that, Disney had the monorails back on the beams conducting the usual tests for safety and a few others, and then resumed service on at least the TTC - Magic Kindom line. It's unclear at the moment if the Epcot line is back up and running.

Additionally they have supposedly installed some new sensors on the switches, which leads one to believe that a switch was indeed a major part of this accident.
 
3. It is surprising how much damage a relatively low speed collision can do to vehicles. There have been studies that show that both police and bystanders cosistently overestimate collision speeds, usually by a factor of 1.5 to 2 or even more. When looking at the damage on these things, remember there is considerably more mass behind the front end than there would be with a car or bus, which would make the tendency to overestimate collision speeds even worse.
Additional reports that have come out are now indicating that it may not have been quite as low speed as originally thought. It's looking like both monorails were in motion at the time and both were using an override mode, which would have limited each to 15 MPH. But that would still be a combined closure rate of 30 MPH.

It is unclear at this point if the operator who was killed had started to slow his train or not, much less what else he did or didn't do in the few seconds that he probably had between realizing that Pink was heading towards him and the actual collision. The fact that Purple was also in motion explains why he didn't reverse his train in an attempt to ourrun Pink. Reversing either requires a full stop or a rather complicated procedure when in motion, and even then the motors and the train won't react all that well to suddenly being thrown into reverse.
 
The National Transportation Safety Board said Monday it will investigate the deadly collision on Walt Disney World's famous monorail, an unprecedented move by a federal agency best known for probing commercial airline crashes.
The announcement came as others looking into Sunday's crash appeared to zero in on what may have been a botched attempt to switch a train from one track to another.
The full story from the Orlando Sentinal.

The story also confirms what has been widely discussed at a few Disney site, that monorail Pink had left the Ticket & Transportation Center (TTC) from what's called the Concourse platform that serves the Epcot loop. Pink was supposed to pull forward to clear a switch that would allow it to move onto the Express loop or Outer beam, which would take it to the barn for the night.

And it has been confirmed that all three loops returned to operation on Monday afternoon. The article above however states that for the moment, cab rides are out. :(
 
The full story from the Orlando Sentinal.
Another snip from that article, pertaining to some questions raised here already...

The NTSB investigation is unprecedented. Not only has the federal agency never before sought to investigate a monorail crash at either Disney World or at Disneyland in California, Knudson said he could not recall a single investigation involving an all-private transit system operating on private land. But he said NTSB officials determined they have jurisdiction in this case.
I guess Disney's "self government" doesn't make them as immune as they might have once thought.
 
The National Transportation Safety Board said Monday it will investigate the deadly collision on Walt Disney World's famous monorail, an unprecedented move by a federal agency best known for probing commercial airline crashes.
from the Orlando Sentinal.
Classic reporter ignorance, since NTSB investigates all significant railroad accidents, plus pipelines, inland waterways and a even some serious highway accidents
 
Classic reporter ignorance, since NTSB investigates all significant railroad accidents, plus pipelines, inland waterways and a even some serious highway accidents
How does that invalidate the claim that the NTSB is best known by the general public for investigating airplane crashes?
It doesn't, but it certainly invalidates the concept of "unprecedented"
 
Classic reporter ignorance, since NTSB investigates all significant railroad accidents, plus pipelines, inland waterways and a even some serious highway accidents
How does that invalidate the claim that the NTSB is best known by the general public for investigating airplane crashes?
It doesn't, but it certainly invalidates the concept of "unprecedented"
I'm sure the actual concept of "unprecedented" is as vague to most writers as that of "unique." I'd wager than in ten years the phrase "most unique" is standard English, if it isn't already. We live in fallen times.
 
Classic reporter ignorance, since NTSB investigates all significant railroad accidents, plus pipelines, inland waterways and a even some serious highway accidents
How does that invalidate the claim that the NTSB is best known by the general public for investigating airplane crashes?
It doesn't, but it certainly invalidates the concept of "unprecedented"
As a student (but not practitioner!) of newswriting style, I could see how the reporter could have meant it as two separate, unrelated statements: that the move was unprecedented (because it's on private property) and that it was done by an agency most people know because of investigations of airline crashes. News writers tend to write compactly, even if sometimes the sentence doesn't quite make as much sense as it would written out a little longer, and things like this often pop up. It's possible the reporter didn't even see how it could be misinterpreted (because in his/her mind, it was two separate concepts), and then the copyeditor wouldn't think to fix it because to the copyeditor, it very well may be unprecedented for what he/she thinks is an airline crash investigation agency to investigate a monorail accident.

Or it is possible the reporter was indeed ignorant. It's hard to tell.

(One of the most annoying news terms I've ever seen is "forced the ouster of"--can't they just use normal English and say "forced out"? That's one rare example where newsspeak [not newspeak!!] is longer than the equivalent normal, conversational English...)
 
I think we can enjoy a discussion about semantics without calling someone ignorant (besides it was the NTSB agent who said the investigation was unprecedented).

If the NTSB investigation isn't "unprecedented," then you guys should be able to cite precedent for several points:

- A previous case of NTSB investigating all-private transport operating on private property.

- A previous case of NTSB investigating a monorail accident at Disneyland or Walt Disney World.

- A previous NTSB investigation of any amusement park attraction, ride or transport.

I can only cite precedent for one point — most railroad incidents likely involve railroads (private companies) operating private transport (their trains) largely on private property (their tracks and rights-of-way).

Aside from that, the Orlando Sentinel story cites several other reasons why this NTSB investigation is unique in several ways, seemingly without precedent (hence, its status as "unprecedented").
 
Hey...as someone with a degree in journalism, I have no problem admitting that reporters are often ignorant of the subjects they cover... ;)
 
Hey...as someone with a degree in journalism, I have no problem admitting that reporters are often ignorant of the subjects they cover... ;)
Is that on or off the record? ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we can enjoy a discussion about semantics without calling someone ignorant (besides it was the NTSB agent who said the investigation was unprecedented).
If the NTSB investigation isn't "unprecedented," then you guys should be able to cite precedent for several points:

- A previous case of NTSB investigating all-private transport operating on private property.

- A previous case of NTSB investigating a monorail accident at Disneyland or Walt Disney World.

- A previous NTSB investigation of any amusement park attraction, ride or transport.

I can only cite precedent for one point — most railroad incidents likely involve railroads (private companies) operating private transport (their trains) largely on private property (their tracks and rights-of-way).

Aside from that, the Orlando Sentinel story cites several other reasons why this NTSB investigation is unique in several ways, seemingly without precedent (hence, its status as "unprecedented").
Of course, the Walt Disney World monorail is a unique situation. It certainly is not an amusement park ride (the Disneyland version is closer to that). It is in every way a mass transit system and moves more people more miles than many conventional rail transit systems. The public can purchase tickets and ride, so the ownership becomes moot. It serves the public, performs primarily a transportaion function, so it is not a stretch to say it is public transportation. The NTSB has broad power to assert jurisdiction of accidents involving public transporation.

The control and operation of the Disney monorail is analogous to rail transit, so it makes sense that the investigatory body would be the people familiar with transportation. I suspect the Disney is quite satisfied that the NTSB exercised jurisdiction since the findings will now have greater credibility and usefulness than what a local or state amusement park ride inspector could have provided.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is in every way a mass transit system and moves more people more miles than many conventional rail transit systems. The public can purchase tickets and ride, so the ownership becomes moot.
Can the public purchase just a ticket to ride the Disney monorail? If so, were would one ride to/from (since you would not have any park admission nor be an on-property hotel guest)?

Or is riding the monorail simply a courtesy Disney extends to its paid guests?
 
As I recall (I've been there once, about 2 years ago), anyone can just walk up and ride the monorail from the TTC to the Magic Kingdom without a ticket for anything - once you get to the Magic Kingdom stop, you get off and walk a short distance to the park gate where you present your ticket for admission.

Why anyone would want to do that is beyond me though...
 
As I recall (I've been there once, about 2 years ago), anyone can just walk up and ride the monorail from the TTC to the Magic Kingdom without a ticket for anything - once you get to the Magic Kingdom stop, you get off and walk a short distance to the park gate where you present your ticket for admission.
Can one walk to the TTC, without being a Disney guest? Can one really walk onto WDW grounds?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top