Wholesale virtual queueing; what are your thoughts?

[Matt N]

Hi guys. Queues are a fact of life at theme parks; the attractions only have a finite throughput, and demand can often outstrip supply at a given moment. Therefore, queues formed on a first-come-first-served basis are a necessity to ensure order within theme parks and to ensure that everyone is treated fairly when trying to experience an attraction.

One increasing school of thought within the theme park industry is to incorporate virtual queueing instead of a physical queue, where guests can go off and do other things, such as eating, drinking, shopping and watching shows, whilst “queueing” for an attraction. Many theme parks have incorporated this principle into queue jumping options like Fastrack/FastPass/FastLane, as well as into disabled accessible alternative queueing methods such as the Ride Access Pass.

A smaller number of theme parks and attractions, however, have gone past this, and attempted to go completely queue-less, embracing wholesale virtual queueing as the norm. This idea gained considerable traction in a number of parks following the COVID-19 pandemic, and even before COVID, the idea of queue-less theme parks and attractions did start to enter the conversation. With us living in a digital age, virtual queueing is arguably easier to facilitate than ever, and it could be argued as a way to make queueing more accessible and fairer. With this in mind, I’d be keen to know; what are your thoughts on wholesale virtual queueing for all, and the idea of the “queue-less” theme park? Do you think that universal virtual queueing is the long-term solution to parks’ queueing woes, and the future of theme parks? Or do you think that it’s a passing trend, and merely a short-term fix rather than a true long-term solution?

Personally, I’m a little bit torn, but I am somewhat sceptical about the prospect of an entirely queue-less theme park.

On the one hand, I can definitely see the benefits of going queue-less all round. If implemented well, a queue-less theme park could drive up guest feedback by making waits seem shorter than they actually are; psychologists have proven that people perceive waits to be shorter and are happier when they are occupied, which a virtual queue is certainly better suited to facilitate than a physical queue. It could also drive up spend per capita by encouraging guests to spend in food outlets and shops during their virtual wait rather than forcing them into physical queues where they can’t spend any money. Furthermore, it would make queueing more accessible and fairer; if nobody queues physically, then that negates the need for alternative queueing provisions such as Ride Access Pass, which is a win-win because disabled guests don’t have to apply for anything and the park don’t have to spend administrative costs implementing it. Wholesale virtual queueing would solve the perceived RAP implementation issues that some parks are currently facing because if no one queues physically, then RAP isn’t really needed in the first place.

On the other hand, however, I have my doubts about the viability of an entirely queue-less theme park as a long-term solution. This is due to various real-world attempts at going entirely queue-less. From what I can gather about past attempts at wholesale virtual queueing for all, the concept of the “queue-less” theme park and universal virtual queueing is an idea that sounds terrific on paper, but doesn’t really work in practice, particularly in theme parks not originally designed for virtual queueing. For example, Thorpe Park’s brief experiment with Reserve’n’Ride a few years back did not go particularly well, from what I gather, and was very quickly reversed. I’ve also heard that Walibi Holland’s attempt at a queue-less theme park during the height of COVID was not very well received. On an individual attraction level, Disney’s “boarding pass” virtual queuing system, used on its recent new attractions such as Rise of the Resistance, has generated considerable controversy. Even Universal’s Volcano Bay, a water park designed with universal virtual queueing in mind, has had considerable teething problems with the implementation of a “queue-less” park, from what I can tell.

Overall, I don’t deny that virtual queueing has its merits as an idea, and in fairness, I’m sure that it could work if a park was properly designed with it in mind and some radical ideas to spread crowds were implemented. However, I am overall sceptical about it as a long term solution simply because if you’re going to take people out of queues, you need to find somewhere else to put them. That is easier said than done, particularly in theme parks not designed with wholesale virtual queueing in mind.

But what are your thoughts on wholesale virtual queueing for all, and the concept of the queue-less theme park? I’d be really keen to know your thoughts!

 

[Tim]

The biggest problem is that most parks have a capacity based on a large proportion of their guests waiting in queue lines. If they aren't queueing there has to be somewhere else or something else for them to do.

Volcano Bay is actually the perfect case study of the issues with virtual queues. With everyone able to virtually queue the slides gain massive wait times as soon as the park opens and every guest can book their slot in line. As a result the more popular rides effectively "sell out" before most guests have had time to book them. Then the non-queueing attractions like the wave pool become insanely over crowded as guests waiting for their reservation had nothing else to do.
At least that's what it was like at opening. I don't know how much it's improved since?

This is why virtual queueing can't currently work in the UK. You need a ratio of queueing and filler attractions (walk on rides, shops, restaurants etc.) That heavily favours the filler rides. And the UK is the exact opposite, with the headline rides being the only reason to visit most of our parks.

Parks like Epcot Animal Kingdon, and Europa are best suited to virtual queuing because they offer enough to keep large amounts of people occupied when they aren't queueing. For Epcot it's the World Showcase dinning options and Animal Kingdom has the exhibits.
I use Europa as an example because it's one of the few parks I've enjoyed just by walking around. But even then if every queueing guest was free to roam the park it would become unbearably busy. Which is why they have a virtual queueing system but for the average guest it's unusable. The number of spaces available have had to be capped so low that you're incredibly lucky to get a spot. And I'm glad that is the case!

Notice that the way to fix virtual queueing also solves the problem it was trying to fix in the first place. Build more attractions that people don't have to queue for!

 

[rob666]

Yup, if there are lots of non queue things to do, then fine,
Alton is ok, plenty of gardens and walks, but add another three bars, half a dozen more flats, a couple more coffee shops, a dancing fountain show, a couple of dozen rowing boats, and a few thousand BENCHes, and a few shows, then they may have enough secondary stuff to allow vr queueing on the main rides.
But they won't do that though will they!
Works well until rides start closing for issues, then all hell breaks out.
That's what happened at Thorpe wasn't it?

 

[pluk]

Queueless theme parks are ideology over practicality.

There cannot be the consistency in operations/throughputs/reliability to have a system where guests can reliably walk up to a ride at a return time and get on without waiting more than a minute or two, without also having times when rides are sent without being full. That would hurt an attractions/ the parks overall capacity for the day and frustrate guests who want to be on the ride.

If you end up with a situation where there is even a slightly significant queue after having to wait virtually to join a queue youbhave the worst if both worlds. People would rightly hate it. This is what was happening on The Swarm when Thorpe tried to run that queueless.

You need a standby line to act as a buffer to throughput variation. Its fine to have return/standby split at 80/20 or more if people understand that is the case and the system is for everyone, not an upcharge.

That also solves some of the problem of what people do while waiting for their return times without the park having to invest massively in things other than rides to entertain people, which are current so lacking.

 

[Rob]

No. Unless the park has enough things for people to do when not queueing then it just does not work. Look at Volcano Bay when it opened, or I think some people on here went to Walibi Holland in 2020 when virtual queue was enforced.

Queues absorb such a large number of people at a theme park. If 80% of those people are suddenly not in the queues but instead wandering pathways, in food outlets and shops, then most parks will fall on their knees.

 

[neil_wilson]

There are theoretically advantages to a virtual queuing system, and I think you’ve done a good job of mentioning them Matt. For example you can height check everyone when they sign up, and then prevent them from joining a queue for a ride they’re too short for. If a guest complains that they only got on three rides, Guest Service could potentially get accurate data on their day, to see that’s happened. It might help with service recovery, although it could have the opposite effect, given that a lot of guests do exaggerate, but no one wants to be called a liar.

We’ve had a lot of discussion and ride access passes and the extent to which they might be abused. At Volcano Bay there are no priority passes because everyone uses the same virtual queuing system. At least some virtual queuing can help to move people to attractions with surplus capacity. For example at Magic Kingdom it’s pretty much unheard of for Hall of Presidents of Carousel of Progress to be full. In theory a virtual queue could fill up these empty seats. At the major British parks I don’t think any of the rides have surplus capacity on busy days. The virtual queuing system might nudge people toward quieter rides/areas on other parts of the park rather than people exploring the park more organically and queuing for each ride they come to.

Most parks now have a system where you pay to skip the queues. These can be smuggled in more subtly, which could be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on how you look at it. Volcano Bay’s virtual queuing system has been frequently criticised, but I believe there you can pay to skip the queues beyond the free system. It’s not clear how many people are doing that, and how well Volcano Bay would function if there wasn’t that option. For example Disney’s water park appear to work better without a virtual queuing system, but I don’t think Disney’s water parks have ever let you pay to skip the queues. It might not be the concept of a virtual queue per se that’s causing all the issues, so much as allowing people to pay to skip them. If you’re comparing Disney and Universal’s water parks, the Disney ones do also have a much bigger acreage, because land wasn’t at such a premium. Volcano Bay might feel crowded, partly because of Tapu Tapu, but also because it is a relatively small amount of space for the volume of people. Incidentally, I believe there was about 5 acres set aside for an expansion. Will that be the next big project after Epic Universe?

I think there are a lot of obstacles to using them to eliminate queuing. Having the capacity to absorb the volume of people in the queues is the biggest one. Some parks do have surplus capacity, for example I’ve never seen Europa Park’s omnimovers completely full. But I doubt any major park has enough surplus capacity for more than a small fraction of guests in the queues. Also, if you go to something like Hall of Presidents, do you want to be surrounded by other guests who don’t want to really be there? Shops and eateries can help to absorb people, although that’s probably reflected in the current capacity anyway. For example Epcot has a lot of capacity in the shops and eateries, but the park’s capacity is about 90,000 with fewer than half the rides that Alton Towers has. On a peak day the shops and eateries are very busy anyway, so the park wouldn’t necessarily cope much better with a virtual queuing system. Things like table service meals can also last an unpredictable time, so you’re going to have people arriving back late for their ride slot. Even with mobile food ordering some people will turn up for their order straight away, and other people turn up 30 minutes later.

Having a system that’s completely reliable is another issue. If you got rid of all the queuelines and then the virtual queuing system went down, would you have to close the park? Running the virtual queuing system could be expensive, if you had to have staff at the entrance to all the queuelines managing it. People might be more willing to join a really long queue if it’s virtual, but will people then get buyer’s remorse? For example, if they join a 4 hour virtual queue for the newest ride and then can’t ride anything else for 4 hours, will they still have a good experience? Accurately predicting waiting times can be difficult, for example a car might have to be removed due to a technical fault, lowering the throughput. If you’d never visited a park before, you could end up joining virtual queues for rides where you’ve got little idea of what they are. Particularly for children, I think it’s often good to let them watch a ride before they join the queue, so they can decide if they want to do it.

 

[Nick🎢]

Something that interests me, is in a hypothetical world with 100% up time. Would it be more efficient for people to "plan their day" and the system maximises the value they get.

I think it's a solid point on ideology over practicality. There are issues like... How will people respond psychologically when they wait in an hour virtual queue for a ride to go down? Because there is a perceived contract in place will they find that more upsetting than being stood in a line.

 

[Plastic Person]

Something that interests me, is in a hypothetical world with 100% up time. Would it be more efficient for people to "plan their day" and the system maximises the value they get.

I think it's a solid point on ideology over practicality. There are issues like... How will people respond psychologically when they wait in an hour virtual queue for a ride to go down? Because there is a perceived contract in place will they find that more upsetting than being stood in a line.

I can't imagine they would find it more upsetting than if they were inching towards the station. This summer at Europa Park, I scored a fluke VQ pass for Can Can Coaster via their app. These tend to disappear like gold dust.

In the 75 minutes I had to wait, I rode the Eurotower, had a fresh croissant and then sat on the showboat opposite the ride's entrance enjoying a pint. If I was at Alton Towers today and was offered a VQ ticket for say, Galactica, not only would I not know what to do with myself for that length of time, but I can hardly think of anywhere desirable to spend any money while I wait.

The "plan your day" aspect of visiting WDW in Florida requires such militant manoeuvres these days, that I don't think I'll visit again. And I say that as someone who still gets a childlike buzz from trip planning.

 

[Thameslink Rail]

Rather than a virtual queuing system, I think Merlin need to have a look at how they design their queues from a psychological aspect. Cattlepen is generally depressing to wait in so should be avoided as much as possible, this should be easy at Alton Towers given the space but Rita and The Smiler have a lot of it. The Smiler's queue is also claustrophobic and generally horrible, it would improve the experience massively if the queue was routed around the back of the ride. There also needs to be things to see and do within the queue. Oblivion has the videos but the queues are rarely long enough for guests to watch all three and they've been heavily edited since the crash. Spinball used to have those pinball machines, it's a shame those have gone since it was just something to do to pass the time.
Also, please don't get me started on how dire some of the queues are down south. Dragons Fury at Chessington breaks every rule with cattlepen galore, a fast track queue clearly visible from the main queue and whilst there are TV screens, these frequently show adverts.

 

[Nick🎢]

I wonder if there is some half way house solution. And it's not exactly radical, similar systems are out there.

Instead of booking a time slot, do people "check-in" at the ride entrance and enter a queue (a digital version of the old ticket at the meat counter). The screen at the ride then shows what group is due to enter the buffer queue etc. This can be streamed to the app too with a pretty solid approximation of when your "batch" will be called for "boarding". Like others have said though a lot of work is needed around this. You need an entertainment plaza around each hub with food, music etc. Somewhere people will want to spend time. There would need to be infrastructure in place to deal with scanning in etc which could be gamed. It isn't easy.

I still personally think there is a psychological difference when somebody books on digitally to standing in a traditional queue.

 

[John]

All of this is unnecessary if all the rides have high throughput and a single queue that moves quickly. When you have low capacity rides with 3 equally-used entrances then whatever tricks you come up with is just shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. Rattlesnake has a well themed and laid queue queue line but that's basically irrelevant as the capacity is so low, meanwhile old Eurosat had what should by any measure have been a horrible queue but it was fine as with the whole lot full you'd still be on in about 15min.

In a Q&A at EP we were once told that on busy days they need to have 1000 people queueing for each of their major rides otherwise the paths can't cope. To ensure that's the case the throughputs have to be high enough that the resulting queue times aren't a problem

 

[rob666]

Blackpool had a good system with the tamagochi system, book the rides, and it gave you a time to ride...shorter wait the more you paid.
The Beach has a better amount of cafes and bars (if open) to wait things out.
It worked well, but then they scrapped it because "everyone" had a smartphone, and they had a dysfunctional app instead.

 

[venny]

Remember boarding groups at Disney? Now imagine that chaos spread across an entire park.

If there’s one thing you cannot remove from people, it’s their right to stand in a four hour theme park queue.

 

[Dave]

There are elements of virtual queuing that might be beneficial but the parks need more filler attractions and you need ways to prevent the headline attractions basically getting booked out before the first hour of the day is completed. Plus parks like Thorpe will really struggle as they have no real space.

The only way to make virtual queuing work is to make the parks profitable on low numbers, so somewhere like Towers would have to cap their numbers at max 10,000 to 12,000 guests. To do that entrance would be so expensive only well off folk could afford it which seems a bit unfair.

 

[Nick🎢]

I am coming around to the idea that it is a bit of a false utopia. It has to be or people would have done it given the money to made from bored people waiting.

 

[Tim]

Blackpool had a good system with the tamagochi system, book the rides, and it gave you a time to ride...shorter wait the more you paid.
The Beach has a better amount of cafes and bars (if open) to wait things out.
It worked well, but then they scrapped it because "everyone" had a smartphone, and they had a dysfunctional app instead.

Actually back in the days of free entry I could see virtual queueing working quite well at Blackpool. If you had a long wait simply go explore the pier or visit the beach. Would be a very popular decision with local businesses.

Having said that a pay per ride model tends to generate shorter queues anyway. So once again the situation in which virtual queueing works also removes the need for virtual queueing.

 

[neil_wilson]

I can see why they tried it for Volcano Bay. Volcano Bay’s a small acreage relative to the number of visitors they get, and although there is a wedge of land for expansion, it’s kind of boxed in, so they couldn’t just make the park bigger. When it comes to dry rides, Disney and Universal use a lot of technology that isn’t available to regional parks, but when it comes to the water parks the rides are more standard, and often have inherently low throughputs. The other major attempts at eliminating queues in water parks was the continuous river system used by Wild Wadi and Schlitterbahn. And if queues did build up there, you’d queue in the lazy rivers rather than on land. A water park is also theroetically somewhere it's easier to provide diversions away from the slides, with sunbeds, wave pool and lazy river.

Water parks do have challenges that theme parks don’t. For example outdoor water parks are so weather dependent. Universal and Disney have both been good at levelling off peaks in attendance with events like Mardi Gras, the Food and Wine festival etc, but they don’t do events at the water parks. Universal have tried to bring in more people for the evening, which I gather is partly why they chose a volcano, because they thought it’d look good at night. But in American culture, water parks are something people go to when the sun’s out. In China people seem more willing to go to an outdoor water park for the evening.

At the same time, it doesn’t seem to have been a knock out success. Also, there were a lot of high expectations for Volcano Bay. The Harry Potter area were genuinely groundbreaking, and Universal hyped Volcano Bay up as re-defining the water park experience. I haven’t visited yet (I will do soon, now that I’m working down the road at Disney), but it doesn’t sound like it did do.

 

[Danscott22]

I’m against full virtual queuing as it’s a system I don’t see running smoothly in reality.