Sea World maintenance

[Brad2912]

I see monorails as a completely novelty attraction, whether that be the previous monorail in Sydney or the current one at SW.

you ride it once to say "I've been on the monorail", then never bother doing it again

funnily enough, pretty similar to how I view most walk-through attractions. 

Probably why I disagree with you so much Push

[rappa]

The Sydney one would have been great, not a novelty at all except it didn't go anywhere useful. 

If it had linked Darling Habour with other high traffic locations it would have had ridership. 

[pushbutton]

But it was a major tourist drawcard, which they no longer have!

[Zanstabar]

26 minutes ago, pushbutton said:

But it was a major tourist drawcard, which they no longer have!

Looking at the Monorail Removal Project's executive summary, they state that 22% of all passengers were commuters. While that sounds like a great portion of its users were presumably tourists, as an actual method of transport (e.g Translink's offerings of Trains, Buses and Ferries) it just didn't cut the mustard. According to this summary, out of the 1.9 million trips on public transport in Sydney during an average weekday, only 6,000 of those were on the monorail. I can see now why it is no more.

To be honest, I don't know why you're fighting so hard for this. Sea World is a business and they will, just like in Sydney, get rid of the monorail if they can no longer justify having it operating. If you were running the park, would you keep an attraction open even though it may be sending you in the red? 

Edited February 8, 2016 by Zanstabar

[Reanimated35]

2 hours ago, DWP said:

Even then tourists usually only rode it once and that's it as it was essentially a gimmick for the tourists and not an actual viable transport system. 

I enjoyed it in the few times I went to Sydney. 1 - I like monorails, 2 - it was something different. It is a shame it's gone, but the cost of riding it and the cost to maintain it were ridiculous. 

edit - to clarify, yes, I'm backing your argument

Edited February 8, 2016 by reanimated35

[pushbutton]

5 minutes ago, Zanstabar said:

Looking at the Monorail Removal Project's executive summary, they state that 22% of all passengers were commuters. While that sounds like a great portion of its users were presumably tourists, as an actual method of transport (e.g Translink's offerings of Trains, Buses and Ferries) it just didn't cut the mustard. According to this summary, out of the 1.9 million trips on public transport in Sydney during an average weekday, only 6,000 of those were on the monorail. I can see now why it is no more.

To be honest, I don't know why you're fighting so hard for this. Sea World is a business and they will, just like in Sydney, get rid of the monorail if they can no longer justify having it operating. If you were running the park, would you keep an attraction open even though it may be sending you in the red? 

So if only 22% ofpassengers were cummuters, doesn't that tell you that most of the passengers were NOT using it purely as a means to get from A to B?

i don't really care about the Sydney monorail anyway. I've never lived there and never would. I'm here in S.E. Queensland and I have easy access to not one, but two fantastic monorail systems. Lucky me!

[Zanstabar]

4 minutes ago, pushbutton said:

So if only 22% ofpassengers were cummuters, doesn't that tell you that most of the passengers were NOT using it purely as a means to get from A to B?

i don't really care about the Sydney monorail anyway. I've never lived there and never would. I'm here in S.E. Queensland and I have easy access to not one, but two fantastic monorail systems. Lucky me!

I think you looked over a portion of my post...

8 minutes ago, Zanstabar said:

While that sounds like a great portion of its users were presumably tourists, as an actual method of transport (e.g Translink's offerings of Trains, Buses and Ferries) it just didn't cut the mustard.

 

I pretty much stated that while it may have had a lot of its total passengers being classified as tourists, it still wasn't enough to justify it running even more.

At least it seemed to have a better lifespan than those monorails in Brockway, Ogdenville and North Harverbrook ...

[pushbutton]

I didn't overlook the last part of your comment. I just think the NSW government overlooked the fact people were riding the monorail EVEN THOUGH it didn't go anywhere useful. That should have told them it was obviously worth keeping. Not as a means of public transport, but as a tourist attraction!

[DWP]

2 hours ago, pushbutton said:

No offense intended, but that's one of the big differences between people in Sydney and those in Queensland, in my opinion!

 

I'm struggling to understand what your saying here?

People in Sydney didn't get behind a novelty attraction that was costing far too much money with only limited benefit while people in QLD kinda somewhat use a monorail in a theme park?

Again I don't follow

[pushbutton]

10 minutes ago, DWP said:

I'm struggling to understand what your saying here?

People in Sydney didn't get behind a novelty attraction that was costing far too much money with only limited benefit while people in QLD kinda somewhat use a monorail in a theme park?

Again I don't follow

No problem!

[Zanstabar]

20 minutes ago, pushbutton said:

I didn't overlook the last part of your comment. I just think the NSW government overlooked the fact people were riding the monorail EVEN THOUGH it didn't go anywhere useful. That should have told them it was obviously worth keeping. Not as a means of public transport, but as a tourist attraction!

Just because some people were riding it didn't mean it that enough people were riding it.

Let's go for a bit of an analogy. Let's say you've just opened a takeaway shop and you've just implemented a delivery service. After a month or two, you look back at your books and realize that while the delivery service did get some use, it wasn't pulling enough profit to justify its existence. Would you remove the delivery service and use that money to go towards other ventures which may result in higher profits? Or would you keep it running even though it provides minimal growth for your business?

Maybe it's because I've grown up being influenced by playing Tycoon games (looking at you, RCT and SimCity), but if something is stagnating and providing minimal, if not negative, growth I would definitely look towards removing it. It only seems like a natural thought process

Edited February 8, 2016 by Zanstabar

[joz]

Thing is theme park Monorail systems (which lets face it is was Sydney's system was) are cheap as hell to run.  That's why they're viable to theme parks which offer them free to guests.  I suspect that the problem Sydney faced was no one could really be bothered with sourcing new rolling stock and dealing with implementing it when there are bigger fish to fry in the Sydney Transport network.  I'd be shocked if it didn't run at a modest profit, but not enough for those who in charge of massive transport infrastructure to care.

 

At Sea World though, it is a big part of what the place is.  At Sea World it offers guests an easy way to commute around the park, is a genuine all weather ride that the whole family can ride together, and more intangibly, it gives the park a kinetic energy as the trains cruise around.  It is worth it to put the effort into it at Sea World.

[DWP]

1 hour ago, pushbutton said:

No problem!

Oh bravo!

How very mature of you to completely ignore the question asked.

[Reanimated35]

3 minutes ago, DWP said:

Oh bravo!

How very mature of you to completely ignore the question asked.

There are certain ways to get his attention. You should have explained you were asking the question while walking through a dark ride. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

2 hours ago, pushbutton said:

So if only 22% ofpassengers were cummuters, doesn't that tell you that most of the passengers were NOT using it purely as a means to get from A to B?

i don't really care about the Sydney monorail anyway. I've never lived there and never would. I'm here in S.E. Queensland and I have easy access to not one, but two fantastic monorail systems. Lucky me!

22% were commuters - meaning they were using it to get to and from work. 

That doesn't mean 78% were tourists. Punters would frequently use it as an alternative method to get the hell away from the S.E.C. after a large act had finished a show. There were uses for it other than tourism, but it was hampered by the lack of other great attractions on the circuit.

Plus - it was hardly 'an attraction'. For an international tourist's bucket list - Bridge, Opera House, Luna Park, Taronga Zoo, Manly Ferry, Bondi Beach, Centrepoint Tower are usually the only things in sydney. Branching out and you'll start to hit things like featherdale, or Scenic World.... but I doubt many people (other than rail enthusiasts) would have had the monorail on their list.

1 hour ago, Zanstabar said:

Just because some people were riding it didn't mean it that enough people were riding it.

Let's go for a bit of an analogy. Let's say you've just opened a takeaway shop and you've just implemented a delivery service. After a month or two, you look back at your books and realize that while the delivery service did get some use, it wasn't pulling enough profit to justify its existence. Would you remove the delivery service and use that money to go towards other ventures which may result in higher profits? Or would you keep it running even though it provides minimal growth for your business?

Maybe it's because I've grown up being influenced by playing Tycoon games (looking at you, RCT and SimCity), but if something is stagnating and providing minimal, if not negative, growth I would definitely look towards removing it. It only seems like a natural thought process

Z - the problem is for Push - he WOULD keep the delivery service, because he likes it, and would gladly pay extra to keep it running. He doesn't use logic, or common sense. He doesn't consider the bigger picture. As far as he is concerned, every business in the world should do the things that he wants them to do, regardless of good business sense. 

The point is, you can't reason with him no matter what you try.

[iwerks]

2 hours ago, joz said:

Thing is theme park Monorail systems (which lets face it is was Sydney's system was) are cheap as hell to run.  That's why they're viable to theme parks which offer them free to guests.  I suspect that the problem Sydney faced was no one could really be bothered with sourcing new rolling stock and dealing with implementing it when there are bigger fish to fry in the Sydney Transport network.  I'd be shocked if it didn't run at a modest profit, but not enough for those who in charge of massive transport infrastructure to care.

 

At Sea World though, it is a big part of what the place is.  At Sea World it offers guests an easy way to commute around the park, is a genuine all weather ride that the whole family can ride together, and more intangibly, it gives the park a kinetic energy as the trains cruise around.  It is worth it to put the effort into it at Sea World.

Yeah, for me, it's an important part of the park experience at SW. Problem is I've seen too many places get rid of their monorails over the years to know it is easier to replace them with a regular bus or tram service, pull down all the monorail track and replace it with a ring road or path with several stops.

[pushbutton]

Well I certainly hope that is not on the cards!

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

10 hours ago, iwerks said:

Yeah, for me, it's an important part of the park experience at SW. Problem is I've seen too many places get rid of their monorails over the years to know it is easier to replace them with a regular bus or tram service, pull down all the monorail track and replace it with a ring road or path with several stops.

Only trouble is, Sea World can't replace it with a ring road or path. The elevated monorail doesn't take up the space that a ground based transport system would need. Sea World doesn't have that space to give. Elevated transport is really the only way for Sea World to have transport rides.

[BigKev]

Another reason to keep the monorail is it is the only (albeit less than ideal) link between the resort and public transport. 

A lot of tourists take advantage of the excellent GC public transport network but the bus stop is a long hike from the resort, and with small kids the best option is to jump on the monorail and then walk out the front gate to the bus stop. 

 

[iwerks]

The monorail certainly makes the resort an attractive place to stay, but it doesn't mean they couldn't put on a shuttle bus or have a gate at that end of the park.

[pushbutton]

If the Sea World monorail ever went I'd rarely go to Sea World. 

[webslave]

They'll be pleased to know it's that easy, I'm sure.

[New display name]

17 minutes ago, pushbutton said:

If the Sea World monorail ever went I'd rarely go to Sea World. 

That will do me.  Only Push can leave me speechless.

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by skeetafly

[pushbutton]

Web slave and Skeetafly - I'm surprised.  I had thought you didn't have that attitude, and up to now most of your posts seemed reasonable. 

Maybe I was mistaken. 

[New display name]

@pushbutton What attitude are you talking about?  Glue sniffing is never ok.

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by skeetafly