Hong Kong will not have Steam? - Will be diesel outlines instead?

Stationmaster · **Joined:** Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:39 pm **Posts:** 85

I run headlong into this particular painful truth every so often, and it always causes me a little bit of heartache. It's not that steam doesn't matter, that no one knows the difference anymore and doesn't care anyway -- that doesn't get to me. What gets me down is the way overt evidence supports that idea. More than once I told a Silverwood guest that our Porter locomotive was built in 1915 and lovingly restored in our own shops, and the guest blinked uncomprehendingly and said, "Oh . . . you mean that's a real train?"

Snappy remarks were tempting ("No, it's virtual reality") but didn't blunt the impact of such discouraging words. It's especially discouraging to those of us who run these old engines, Disney or otherwise, and have invested blood, sweat and tears into mastering the 170-year-old tradition of engine-running, only to be told that all that effort and energy didn't matter, that we might just as well be running an oversized parking tram. Management, ever eager to be both pound- and penny-wise, seizes on this quick and easy way to significantly cut their maintenance costs. And to assuage our heartache, we nurse our rationalizations, as a depressed man nourishes his whiskey. Sure, they're not "real" steam trains anymore, we tell ourselves, but aren't theme parks (Disney parks especially) all about fantasy?

What would Walt think? Geez, c'mon, he's been dead for nearly 40 years, what does it matter? And even if he were alive, well, he developed the steam trains at a time when steam still plied mainline rails, he was influenced by a nostalgia for a time that's now well outside living memory, and even his judgment wasn't always perfectly sound. Just look at Retlaw 1, so beautiful and yet so impractical.

But what Walt, the greatest showman, always knew is that just having a train isn't enough. Sure, it's better than having no train, and it's good to have all the thrill rides and the coasters and the tie-ins to blockbuster movies, but that's not enough. It's not enough to set you above competition that's only going to keep getting better, it's not enough to make sure your park will still be around fifty years from now, it's not enough to make your fantasy timeless.

It's a lesson he learned from his animation: it's not enough to have the characters move around, you have to do things that the average audience member will never, ever notice. Walt and his Nine Old Men of animation developed techniques that influenced everyone from Japanimation to Pixar. For instance, have you ever noticed that animated characters tend to be double-jointed? Yes, even the "anatomically correct" ones. It's called "breaking the joint" and chances are no one ever noticed it. You'd probably only see it if you watched the movie frame-by-frame, and even then it would likely fit into the scene so well you'd skim right by it. Of course it would look gruesome if live-action characters were breaking their joints all the time, but this isn't live-action, and the final effect is that the character seems more limber, more supple, seems more lifelike and alive than real life.

Disney and his animators were the ones who invented this whole bag of tricks. It took vast amounts of time and money, much more than just plunking down one drawing for each frame of film and calling it good. Frank Thomas would spend the whole working day on a single drawing if that's what it took to get it exactly right, and both Walt and Roy approved.

Would any audience member be able to point this out? Would anyone in the theater say after a test screening, "I loved they way they kept breaking those joints"? Of course not. They just knew it was good animation. Warner Bros. was good, too. So was Fleischer Bros. and Hanna-Barbara. So what the heck difference did it all make?

Because all those super-lively characters, all that joint-breaking and other techniques I don't have space to describe here, added up to one thing: a powerful sense that Disney animation wasn't just good. It was better than good. It was Disney. There was no way to describe something that good except to say it was Disney. And audiences said as much with their wallets.

When Walt built Disneyland, it was all done according to that tradition. Sure, carny rides with some movie tie-ins would have been good, but it wouldn't have been Disney. Diesel-powered trains and a diesel-powered sternwheeler would have been good, but it wouldn't have been Disney. Rainbow Caverns, Frontierland, Main Street USA, Cinderella's Castle . . . they couldn't just be good, they had to be Disney.

The Great America trains, the C.P. Huntingtons, the Wildlife Express . . . they're good trains, but our trains, the "Roy O." and the "Walter," the "Holliday" and the "Gurley" . . . they're Disney trains. They're gen-u-ine steam-powered trains, and they chuff and whistle and command devotion and make sights and sounds most park guests have never seen in their lives before. And it matters. It's part of what people mean when they say "We're going to Disneyland!" with an enthusiasm reserved for no other place on Earth.

The Hong Kong trains . . . I'm sure they look lovely. And I'm sure they're good.

But they're not Disney.

Steve DeGaetano · **Posted:** Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:23 pm

At one time, Disneyland was not seen as just an amusement park; it had a strong educational component as well, as seen in attractions such as Adventure Thru Inner Space or The Jungle Cruise.

When the Disney Company distanced itself from one of its founders' goals in creating the park, they stepped onto the road tht has led them, in subsequent years, from "theme park" to "Amusement park." So, historically educational attractions--such as an actual steam railroad--went from being operating pieces of history to just another ride. Which, of course, is all that the HK trains are, really--just another ride. When viewed in this light, it really makes no difference how they're powered. This speaks volumes about the company and what it decides to emphasize in its parks.

Locoboy5150 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:11 pm

I have a general question for everyone though and there is no right or wrong answer to it, but I'm just wondering what everyone else feels about this. Would the Disney parks and the company itself survive today if they were run the way Walt wanted to run it? Remember that Walt had Roy to keep track of the dollars and cents and to be 100% honest, I do not think that the Walt Disney Company would have survived without Roy working behind the scenes to keep Walt and his ideas in check.

Just before Michael Eisner and Frank Wells came along to save Disney from corporate raiders, the company was being run by people that were *constantly* looking towards the past for new ideas. Ron Miller and Card Walker were always asking themselves "What would Walt do?" every single step of the way. We all know how "well" the company was functioning under their leadership.

I agree that you should never lose track of what got you where you are now, but I think that there is a very delicate balance between the all out Miller/Walker rear view mirror approach and the more business-like Eisner/Wells method.

Maybe more importantly, would people today invest in a company that would always be looking back and asking "What would Walt do?" They didn't in the late 1970s and early 1980s. If that didn't work then, why would it work now?

I remember a famous quote by Walt Disney that said that they didn't create Disneyland just with the idea of making money. That might have been true and I certainly don't doubt it one bit, but that was in the 1950s. In today's business world filled with giants like Cisco Systems, Oracle, Google, and eBay where investors are only interested in the bottom line, maximizing profits, can Disney attract investors if they only look towards the past?

I'm just wondering about how others feel on this since it does tie into the subject of this thread, the pure cost cutting use of steam outline locomotives versus steam locomotives.

Edited By Locoboy5150 on 1103704941

WesternRiverRR · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:02 am

So let me get this straight? they designed the ?Disney? look and feel for HKDL engines. They put a ?Disney? paint job on the HKDL engines. They created the consist to ?Disney? standards? and They will (to my knowledge) be adding the traditional ?Disney? quality graphics, logos, and lettering to the trains. Our conductors will have the traditional ?Disney? uniforms and (should) exhibit the same ?Disney? courtesy we?ve come to expect from our cast members. This train will circle our new Disney park and will be a lasting memory (one hopes) for our guests for years to come and you?re telling me? that is, your belief is? that these trains are ?not Disney??

Did I get that right?

They?re ?not Disney? not because they don?t look the part? not because they don?t act the part, but simply because the engines have a different power plant? a simpler, more efficient, more cost effective, more easily sustainable power plant. Something that an overwhelmingly high percentage of our guests will never know (nor care to).

Do I have that right? Did I get all that?

Hmmm? well, let me see here then, let?s make a list shall we? Following this logic the following (and this is just a quick rundown) attractions and items in our parks don?t deserve to be called ?Disney? due to the same argument.

Tom Sawyer Rafts (motor on board)
Various Main Street vehicles (some exhibit the look and feel of internal combustion, yet are electric)
Jungle Cruise Boats (Face it ? the skipper doesn?t drive, the wheel does nothing, they?re on a track AND? that steam engine ? not a REAL steam engine. GASP!)

Shall we go further? Ok?

Those Starspeeder 3000s in Tomorrowland? not real space ships.
Casey Jr? Egad! Yet another fake steam engine (and yet another Walt himself oversaw)
Those old subs that used to ply the lagoon? Nope ? not real either.

And finally?

That Castle at the end of Main Street? Hate to break it to you, but? not a REAL castle. (I know, I know? hard to accept.)

If I seem a little harsh here, I apologize, but I?m getting pretty sick and tired of hearing this bunk about ?what would Walt do? and this, that, or the other thing ?isn?t Disney.? You know what ? Walt was a businessman. As much as his public image has been massaged and redefined over the years, he was a businessman.

Would Walt have allowed diesels in the parks? Maybe, maybe not? none of us know, but what we do know is that if they did have to be diesels, they would have to be first rate. THAT?S what ?Disney? truly is? high quality, superior craftsmanship, and working within the confines given to produce the best product possible.

Would it be better to have steam? As a steam fan and a cast member, I feel the answer is yes. Am I disappointed they aren?t? Of course, but if they are diesels, I want the best ones we can get, and that?s what?s happening. We?re getting a ?Disney? diesel. Don?t like it? Ok, feel free to mail a check up to Burbank? maybe if you put enough zeros on it, someone will reconsider. Right now (and seemingly everyday of late) we have to keep the accounts away from our budgets with a whip and a chair. Every single CM that has contributed to the creation of HKDL (railroad or otherwise) deserves nothing but your utmost respect. These folks are truly making ?magic? with almost nothing.

Feel bad that the engines aren?t steam. Be mad at the powers-that-be they decided not to pay for real steam. Express your frustration at the situation, but don?t for one second suggest that these trains aren?t Disney. Too much blood, sweat, heartache, and time from very, very good people have gone into these trains? from people that know what ?Disney? is, people that have defined the very essence of ?Disney,? and people that (I assure you) are just as big fans of Disney railroads and railroad lore as you are?all that and more has gone into these trains and that is why, for you to say these trains are ?not Disney?? well that?s just an insult.

These trains are exactly what Disney is.

Edited By WesternRiverRR on 1105060199

Steve DeGaetano · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:10 pm

Both Stationmaster and Josh present some interesting, well-thought-out points that we'll have to chew on.

I'm not really sure where I stand. Comparisons with the Jungle Cruise boats or the Main Street vehicles may not hold up (many turn-of-the-century vehicles were powered by electricity, for example).

Of course, Disney has always had to make concessions to the technologies of the day, and had to work within feasible boundries. Having small steam boilers on every Jungle Cruise launch would clearly have not been feasible or practical. Same with actual submarines. However, having an operating steam locomotive is entirely feasible.

The fact that we sometimes use the excuse that "people won't notice anyway," if the engines are diesel powered does seem to fly in the face of what we know Walt Disney stood for. Walt instinctively knew what people would notice as being subterfuge, and that if he did go the cheap or easy way with some things, people would notice.

Sure, sometimes it is futile to try to know "what Walt would have done," but I am a firm believer in the fact that we should know what he would have done. He told us--not only through his voluminous TV presentations and interviews, but through what was his greatest achievement--Disneyland. The Anaheim park, without hyperbolizing, is very much a physical manifestation of the mind of its creator, as much as some may try to trivialize the place as nothing but a money-making amusement park.

Walt did have the choice to dieselize, or even automate, the trains (if Ward Kimball is to be believed). The Santa Fe Railway also tried-- unsuccessfully--to persuade park officials to have a real Diesel train in the 1970s--a thought that was shot down then, but might not seem so far-fetched today.

I realize that some folks at Disney today understand "Disney," and may even understand Disney railroads and railroad lore (I am aware that John Olsen, a prominent and extrememly talented model railroaders whose layouts are "Disney-esque" in their detail, was involved in this project). Still, I don't think it's wrong to wonder why the choice was made to use diesels. Barring any rules or regulations against boilers, etc., that prohibited the use of real steam locomotives, I think what concerns most folks is that the choice was made not necessarily out of necessity, but because it was "cheaper." And if that was the case, then perhaps the lessons Disney tried to teach us about quality and what his guests would embrace or reject may have fallen on deaf ears.

Edited By Steve DeGaetano on 1103739325

Chris · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:03 pm

Well diesels are cheaper to maintain but they are much worse to the eviorment since all the diesel and other deadly stuff is wose than coal smoke of a steamer. I am with the station master on this one saying that our engines like the LILLY, the ROGER, the KIMBALL, the RIPLEY, the MARSH, the other HOLIDAY, the WASHINGTON, the WILLIAM, the EUREKA and the locomotives in Japan are Disney trains. The engines which the station master metioned are also Disney trains. But saying these beautiful diesel steam outlined locomotives are Disney and are not Disney at the same time but hey a train is better than no train. ???

Edited By Chris on 1103757034

Stationmaster · **Joined:** Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:39 pm **Posts:** 85

Woah there, Josh. Nothing I wrote was intended as an insult, and I doubt the Imagineers would take it that way. It's the product I'm addressing, not its designers. I once wrote an entire essay on why [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105483/]A Stranger Among Us[/url] was a terrible film, but no one would take that as an insult to the otherwise brilliant director Sidney Lumet. Very, very good people can invest a great deal of blood, sweat, time and heartache into something . . . only to have it still not measure up.

I agree that it's pointless to try to deduce what Walt would do, and madness to think we can. I'm not trying to approach this issue as a pseudo-Walt, though I've certainly learned a lot from what he did. I'm drawing on my background in film and theater and theme park work. I'm trying to approach this as a showman and not a foamer. I want to give a great show, make sure the guests have fun, are safe and comfortable and go home with wonderful memories . . . and I want to give more. That is what sets a Disney showman apart from the rest: the desire to deliver all that's expected, and more.

You made reference to the way very little in the Disney parks is what it represents. For a lot of things, that's the way to do it. Whenever I'm on a stage or film set built using forced perspective, I'm always struck by how uncannily tall or long the dimensions seem ? taller and longer, even, than what the set is supposed to represent. Main Street USA and Sleeping Beauty's castle have this effect, and the fact that a little visual scrutiny will reveal how the trick is done doesn't diminish its impact. You don't remember those sights as an adult in adult-sized surroundings would ? that would be merely mundane. You remember it with a certain disingenuousness, an awe of those exaggerated perspectives, as a child might. It makes all the difference in the world.

There are some things that are best rendered that way and others that aren't. That sounds like a double standard, but there are differences. I'm thinking of [url=http://www.subdivisioncolorado.com/]Subdivision, Colorado[/url], a cheerfully preposterous adventure flick that features, among other spectacles, a murderous reanimated skeleton, a giant made of granite, and an exploding mine. The skeleton and giant are obviously computer-generated, but invested with such personality and expression that they attain that standard of animation aspired to by Ollie Johnston and Pixar, where the characters become more real than real life itself. But the mine explosion is a letdown. Despite magnificent fireballs and well-detailed flying debris, it has no punch, no real effect, no sense that we are watching anything other than computer algorithms. Even firecrackers and a miniature would at least have had the effectiveness of a real, three-dimensional object. The digital imagery worked great for supernatural beings, but failed at rendering a non-fantastical dynamite blast. Some things are best represented without trickery.

It's into that category that I firmly place the Disney trains. Not the little trains like Casey Jr., but the big trains, the ones that provide the "Grand Circle Tour of the Magic Kingdom." They must have lovely Disney paint jobs, and friendly Disney crews, and beautiful Disney cars, but that's not enough to satisfy the Disney showman. That's just what's expected. To be Disney, they must have bright whistles that feather steam as they sing out across the park. The cab must contain a gleaming brass gauge that registers the pressure of a boiler full of real, live steam. The pistons must be obedient to the irresistible force of steam, and exhausting it with a reverberating, throaty bark four times per revolution of the wheels. And when that one guest in a thousand asks "is this a real train," the conductor must truthfully reply that yes, you have been borne aloft by steam, the very life-force of the mythologized Industrial Revolution.

Do the guests notice? Do they care? Yes, but not in any way that's easily stated for managers who don't comprehend anything that isn't spelled out for them in black and white. The guests feel it on the same level that the greatest Disney animation operates on, the one where the timeless strengths of art and storytelling combine to exude a mythic pull, an animal magnetism. They know they have not encountered anything so easily tamed as a parking lot tram in a Victorian skin. They have come face to face with an unfamiliar beast, a wild child, an iron dinosaur.

We all know what to expect from the Hong Kong trains, and they will deliver on all but that last all-important ingredient ? that extra bit more ? and so I must stand by my earlier statement. They're good trains, maybe even darned good. But they're not Disney.

Steve DeGaetano · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:09 pm

Stationmaster wrote:

To be Disney, they must have bright whistles that feather steam as they sing out across the park. The cab must contain a gleaming brass gauge that registers the pressure of a boiler full of real, live steam. The pistons must be obedient to the irresistible force of steam, and exhausting it with a reverberating, throaty bark four times per revolution of the wheels. And when that one guest in a thousand asks "is this a real train," the conductor must truthfully reply that yes, you have been borne aloft by steam, the very life-force of the mythologized Industrial Revolution.

Wow. Beautiful. I am humbled by your prose.

WesternRiverRR · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:57 pm

Stationmaster wrote:

Nothing I wrote was intended as an insult, and I doubt the Imagineers would take it that way.

This one did.

Stationmaster · **Joined:** Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:39 pm **Posts:** 85

Then I apologize. Again, it wasn't my intent to offend anyone.

Perhaps "not Disney" is a bit of an overstatement. It would probably be more accurate to say that the HKDL trains don't fulfill, or conform to, my expectations for the Disney trains. And I do expect a lot. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a lot from Disney, especially since the Imagineers have consistently delivered the goods, with panache, for the past half-century.

I would hope that in the pantheon of Disney detractors, I'd be a relatively minor offender. There are people who denounce the Disney parks and everything they stand for with near-evangelistic fury. I know that the directors and actors I've worked with need to have some healthy confidence in their abilities (and a very thick skin) to withstand the inevitable scathing review.

Hong Kong will not have Steam? - Will be diesel outlines instead?

Who is online