Just out of interest I have been running some scenarios to get some objective data.
If we take an extreme look at Nemesis - assuming that back row is filled every train with RAP.
That is 12.5% of the riders. With an average queue time of 18m according to
Queue-Times the
inconvenience of the RAP guests adds 2m and 15s to that main queue time. This is of course
completely ignoring the fact that those people have virtual queued for, lets be fair and balanced, an amount of time which may or may not be fully represntive of the queue they did not use.
If we asked RAP users to queue in the main queue in this scenario, the average main queue wait would be exactly the same. All we have done is physically moved the location that the people sat in that back row came from.
When we consider what we are really debating is the time-efficiency of using RAP, not that 2m 15s. Even if we made a really over the top arguement that RAP gets 2x the ride count. Its adding just over a minute to a main queue of Nemi.
I would make the suggestion that there is a bit of emotion-led subjectivity at play generally.
Please keep in mind this is quite an extreme look at it. Other rides like Galactica is 1 row every 2 trains. Smiler yesterday was doing about 20-25 main queue, any frast track that arrived (5-10) then one (2-4) RAP group into the station.
I am sure there are plenty of
whataboutisms that can be thrown at this, but if you consider a world where those RAP users are just in the main queue. It makes virtually no difference. Its a rounding error.
Disclaimer: This post turned out a lot longer than I expected. If you struggle with long posts, there is a TL;DR at the bottom that summarises my basic points into a more concise block of text.
There are a couple of things I would say in response to your post. I’ll split it up into two separate points to make it easier to read.
Different RAP Allocations For Different Rides
The first thing I’d say is that Nemesis, from my experience, often has one of the lowest RAP (and by extension FT) allocations of any major ride. This is likely in part due to higher throughput, but for whatever reason, the ride never seems to allocate more than 1/8 of capacity to RAP, from my experience.
By comparison; on my most recent visit, RMT was doing 20%, and Spinball was doing a full 1/3. I’ve also seen Thirteen doing about 20% in the past (the back 2 rows, far more often than not, seem to be left exclusively for RAP). So Nemesis is one of the examples where RAP affects the main queue least; this is likely in large part due to high throughput, but it being a less popular ride than some others on park (Smiler and Wicker Man) could also play a role. The fact that Nemesis is an extreme thrill ride aimed at older guests (a lower percentage of whom are likely to need RAP) could also play a role.
To counter your Nemesis case study, I’ll refer to
Spinball Whizzer as an example. On my most recent visit, the ride was operating a perfect 3-way split between main queue, RAP and FT, therefore
1/3, or
33%, of capacity was being allocated towards RAP. I calculated that the ride throughput was
623pph, therefore the main queue throughput, RAP queue throughput, and FT queue throughput were all around
208pph (to the nearest person, though; the actual answer to 623/3 is 207 2/3, but you can’t have fractions of people, so I’ll round). According to my trip report from the day, I waited around
45 minutes for Spinball in this queue, therefore the queue contained around
155.75 people. If RAP was removed from the equation, the main queue throughput would have been
415pph to the nearest person and the queue would have taken
22.5 minutes. If FT were also removed from the equation and all the throughput came from the main queue, the main queue throughput would be
623pph and the queue would have taken
15 minutes. That’s not an insignificant difference.
I appreciate that that is quite an extreme case study. I’ll throw in two slightly less extreme examples for balance.
Runaway Mine Train was allocating
20%, or
1/5, of capacity towards RAP on the same visit, and roughly the same percentage was being allocated to FT. I calculated that the ride throughput was
597pph, therefore the main queue throughput was
358pph (to the nearest whole person). According to my trip report from the day, I waited around
45 minutes for RMT in this queue, therefore there were approximately
268.65 people in this queue. If RAP were removed from the equation, the main queue throughput would be
478pph (to the nearest whole person), and the queue would have taken
33.75 minutes. If FT were removed from the equation too, the main queue throughput would be
597pph, and the queue would have taken
27 minutes. That is a fair old difference; while not as drastic as Spinball, taking RAP out of the equation would result in a main queue that is 11.25 minutes shorter.
As my final example,
Nemesis was allocating
12.5%, or
1/8, of capacity towards RAP on my last visit. Assuming roughly the same percentage was being allocated towards FT, that means that the main queue was accounting for
75%, or
3/4, of the total ride throughput. I calculated that Nemesis’ throughput was
1,172pph, therefore the main queue throughput was
879pph. According to my trip report, I waited approximately
45 minutes for Nemesis that day, therefore there were around
659.25 people in the queue. If RAP were removed from the equation, the main queue throughput would be
1,026pph (to the nearest whole person), and the queue would have taken approximately
38.6 minutes. If FT were removed from the equation too, the main queue throughput would have been
1,172pph and the queue would have taken approximately
33.8 minutes. Yes, this difference isn’t too drastic, but it is definitely a difference; 6.4 minutes may not be much, but it could be the difference between being able to get in the queue for a final ride at ride close and missing that final ride because the queue for the previous one took too long. And this is the difference on a ride which, from my experience at least, has one of the highest percentages of total throughput allocated towards the main queue.
I apologise, as I know these aren’t perfect measurements, and I also know that I ramble on a bit here, but my point is; these non-main queues do matter in terms of their effect upon the main queue. Even the lowest allocation will have an effect if the queue is even vaguely sizeable.
Let me now move onto my second counter response…
The Psychology Of Queueing
You say that moving people out of the RAP queue (and by extension the FT queue) will achieve nothing other than making the main queue longer, therefore the actual main queue time won’t change. I won’t argue with that; you still have the same number of guests wanting to ride regardless of which queue they’re coming from, so I agree that getting rid of RAP and FT alone would achieve very little in terms of actually reducing the main queue time because these guests will simply join the back of the main queue, therefore making the main queue longer in length and changing nothing in terms of queue time.
However, there is one key thing that I would say having 100% of throughput coming from the main queue would improve. That is the speed at which the main queue would move.
Now I can hear you saying “What difference would the speed at which the queue moves make, Matt? The queue will still take the same amount of time, so the speed at which it moves is a moot point!”. I know you probably think I’m insane for suggesting that the speed makes a difference, but hear me out for a second.
Let me cite this article from
queue-it.com, which talks about the 6 rules of queueing psychology according to experts:
https://queue-it.com/blog/psychology-of-queuing/
The rule that is relevant here is that
unoccupied queueing time feels longer than occupied queueing time. If the queue moves more slowly due to a greater percentage of throughput allocated towards RAP and FT, then guests will have a greater percentage of their queueing time being unoccupied, which exacerbates a perception that the queue is long, whereas if more of the throughput is given to the main queue, more of guests’ time is occupied with moving forward in the queue, therefore the queue is perceived as shorter and guests have a more positive feeling towards it.
This also feeds into another principle;
beating expectations makes people happy (
https://www.vonage.nz/resources/articles/the-psychology-of-queuing/). If guests are greeted with a 45 minute queue with a throughput of 1,500pph that looks huge, then they will feel happy upon leaving because the queue was shorter than they’d imagined (“That massive queue only took
45 minutes; it felt like we never stopped moving!”). On the other hand, if guests are greeted with a 45 minute queue with a throughput of 300pph that looks small, then they will feel unhappy because the queue was longer than they’d imagined (“Ugh, that tiny little queue took
45 minutes; it felt like we never moved!”). In queue psychology terms, the actual queue time is relatively academic;
perception is everything, particularly when it comes to the quality of day out that guests have; a fast moving queue will give guests a more positive feeling and trick them into thinking that the queue is shorter than it actually is, while a slow moving queue will give guests a more negative feeling and trick them into thinking that the queue is longer than it actually is.
I’d wager that this is why Europa Park has such a good reputation on the topic of ride queues; their major ride queues are not
that much shorter than those of your average theme park, but due to a combination of ride throughputs that are throttled to their absolute maximum and the vast, vast majority of throughput coming from the main queue, the queues move more quickly and give guests a more positive perception of them due to having their expectations beaten and having relatively little unoccupied time.
As we’re on the topic of RAP/FT, I would also bring up another principle of queueing psychology that the experts of queue-it.com talk about in their article;
unfair waiting feels longer than fair waiting. Now for clarity, I’m not saying that RAP users not having to queue is unfair. I am not saying that at all; RAP is a necessity for some, and I fully understand why some people need to skip the queues. However, to your average guest, a 100% first come first served system where everyone queues equitably and the entire throughput of the ride is sourced from one queue is likely to feel fairer than a priority-based system where the ride throughput is sourced from multiple different queues. If a guest is waiting in a queue where the ride’s entire throughput is sourced from that one queue, they will likely perceive it as more fair, and thus quicker, than if they’re in a queue that constantly gets overtaken by RAP, FT, and other similar “extra” queues. If a queue is constantly being stopped to let FT and RAP users in, then the main queue guests are likely to feel a bit cheesed off (“Why do all of those other people get to skip the queue and go on before me?”) and will likely perceive the main queue to be longer than it is.
I realise that I’m rambling a lot here, so I’ll summarise. My basic point is; with queueing, the actual queue time is fairly irrelevant to the quality of guests’ experience.
Perception is everything, and that is a large part of the issue that this thread centres around. A 45 minute queue that moves quicker and is perceived as fairer will give guests a far more positive perception than a 45 minute queue that moves more slowly and is perceived as more unfair. To some, a large percentage of throughput being allocated towards RAP and FT could be perceived as “unfair” and will make the queues move more slowly, therefore making the queues
feel slower than they actually are and generally giving guests a more negative impression.
In conclusion…
I apologise if anything I’ve said has touched a nerve. For clarity, I do not support the removal or pairing back of RAP; I think it’s an absolute necessity for some, and removing it or scaling it back substantially would ostracise the disabled community in a way that I, and I’m sure many others, would not personally support. I’d far rather parks that are inclusive to all and have RAP than parks that ostracise certain groups and don’t have RAP. I was simply trying to explain some of the reasons why it’s perceived as having such an effect, and also why the effect that RAP in its current form has
does matter even if its effect does not appear that big on the surface.
I apologise if this comes across confrontational or offensive. That certainly wasn’t my intent; I simply wanted to air some of my thoughts and raise a few points in response to your post. I am very sorry if I’ve made you feel in any way offended or if I’ve said anything wrong or hurtful.
TL;DR: In response to your post, I would raise two counter points.
The first is that Nemesis has a lower RAP allocation than most rides on park, and that the effect upon the main queues is notable in most cases. On some of the rides with higher allocation, taking it out of the equation would lower queue times by as much as 50%. Even on Nemesis, it would lower queue times by about 14%, which is not insignificant.
The second is that the quantity of RAP will alter guests’ perception of a queue, even if the amount of time it takes is the same. Guests will perceive queues that move more quickly and are “fairer” to take less time than queues that move more slowly and are less “fair”, and queues that are perceived as quicker will give guests a more positive experience.
