 |
Re: NTSB report on fatal monorail collision at Disney World on 7/5/2009
Author: Erik H.
Date: 11-06-2011 - 07:50
. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The flag of interest was not the crash itself or
> cause, but the incredible cost. How many
> Dash 9's could one buy for 24 million clams?
Maybe if the trains were built to FRA Crashworthiness Regulations, there would be less damage and therefore less cost? (Of course the trains were built long before the reg was written, and besides wouldn't be subject to it anyways since the monorail isn't regulated by the FRA, but just a point of comparison...)
Also...GE pumps out how many ES44s in a year? Bombardier pumps out how many monorails in a year? There's a difference between a Ford Focus that is mass produced in the quantity of hundreds per day versus Lamborghinis that are hand made to make a couple hundred a year. There is no monorail factory - an existing factory has to be retrofitted in order to accomodate monorail train construction. For Disney to come up with "new" monorails for Disneyland as the Mark V monorails had been in continual service between 1987 and 2008 (20 years), Disney had to reverse engineer and tear down an existing Mark V monorail, and then essentially tear down the old trains and build the new ones on the existing chassis. The result is that Disneyland now has one fewer monorail than before (as one ended up being parted out). Much of the work was done in-house because there just wasn't an outside contractor able to do the job. Fortunately Disney has lots of "factory" space in Burbank (at Disney Studios) that once the monorail project was done, could be reused for other purposes. And Disney also has deep pockets that would make most anyone else cringe. Except maybe an oil exploration company, and they wouldn't be building monorails.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The flag of interest was not the crash itself or
> cause, but the incredible cost. How many
> Dash 9's could one buy for 24 million clams?
Maybe if the trains were built to FRA Crashworthiness Regulations, there would be less damage and therefore less cost? (Of course the trains were built long before the reg was written, and besides wouldn't be subject to it anyways since the monorail isn't regulated by the FRA, but just a point of comparison...)
Also...GE pumps out how many ES44s in a year? Bombardier pumps out how many monorails in a year? There's a difference between a Ford Focus that is mass produced in the quantity of hundreds per day versus Lamborghinis that are hand made to make a couple hundred a year. There is no monorail factory - an existing factory has to be retrofitted in order to accomodate monorail train construction. For Disney to come up with "new" monorails for Disneyland as the Mark V monorails had been in continual service between 1987 and 2008 (20 years), Disney had to reverse engineer and tear down an existing Mark V monorail, and then essentially tear down the old trains and build the new ones on the existing chassis. The result is that Disneyland now has one fewer monorail than before (as one ended up being parted out). Much of the work was done in-house because there just wasn't an outside contractor able to do the job. Fortunately Disney has lots of "factory" space in Burbank (at Disney Studios) that once the monorail project was done, could be reused for other purposes. And Disney also has deep pockets that would make most anyone else cringe. Except maybe an oil exploration company, and they wouldn't be building monorails.
