[Fun] Disneyland topography

[mratigan]

ive been thinking about Disneyland and its topography
here are some spots i can think of
i can think of autopia is on the subs so you rise up there
on big thunder trail you go down leading into fantasmic seating
NOS rises up after the treehouse and keeps on going up till splash mountain and then head back down to the regular level
you go under in to toontown and rise back up

all so isn't there a big hill were the sky way station was and the big thunder ranch service road?
thanks sooooooo much everyone


yayayayayayayaya my 500th post
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
:yea::yea::yea::yea::yea::yea::yea::yea:

[mycroft16]

Re: Disneyland topography

A good thing to base this off of is the railroad line. It varies VERY little around the whole loop. A couple of feet between each station at most.

Think about how you enter the park and walk under the train tracks. Then think about how you enter Haunted Mansion on the same level as the tracks. You have come up that far. This means that when you go down in the stretching rooms you are really going down to ground level again (roughly the same level as the park entrance). You aren't underground, but you are below the built up grade within the park.

A similar thing happens with Pirates and Indy and Splash Mountain. The stories begin before you even enter the ride/queue buildings. The temple entrance for Indy, the walkway in front of Splash Mountain and the entrance to the Pirates building are all about on the same level as Haunted Mansion's entrance. In all of these rides you in some way go "under ground" without really going under ground. Yet through slowly taking you up, then going back down in the queue or on the ride they can convince you that you have gone underground.

[mratigan]

Re: Disneyland topography

Thanks so much
Any else know about the rest of the park

[gary94080]

Re: Disneyland topography

the rise from New Orleans Square to the treehouse wasn't always there. the whole area used to have a flater more gradual slope. all the grade changes were added when they built the overpass in front of the Pirates of the Caribbean and put the ride entrance under it.

[thomaslw]

Re: Disneyland topography

If you really want to have fun exploring Disneyland's topography, just check out the google maps for it close up view (you can rotate it around too)

disneyland - Google Maps

you can see where all the ride buildings actually are (winnie the pooh and indiana might surprise people) and the access roads that actually surround both parks. the disneyland maps you get at the parks just pretends they are trees. what's also fun is to figure out room for more rides.

[mratigan]

Re: Disneyland topography

thanks eveyone
is there a big hill near big thunder ranch??????????

[mycroft16]

Re: Disneyland topography

thanks eveyone
is there a big hill near big thunder ranch??????????

Not a big hill no, but a rise is present. From the front of thunder you go up about 6 - 8 feet by the time you reach small world where you are almost level with the train tracks. not sure of the rise and fall through Fantasyland though.

[Mojave]

Re: Disneyland topography

A good thing to base this off of is the railroad line. It varies VERY little around the whole loop. A couple of feet between each station at most.

Not a big hill no, but a rise is present. From the front of thunder you go up about 6 - 8 feet by the time you reach small world where you are almost level with the train tracks. not sure of the rise and fall through Fantasyland though.

Is this from specific information or best guesses?

It would certainly make sense that the DLRR track varies very little around its loop since it was built in 1955 on orange groves. But still the engines certainly could pull their trains on grades that rise more than a couple feet. Not saying they do, just that they could. I wonder if Steve has any info on this?

Where did you get the 6-8 feet from Thunder to IASW? That's so specific over such a long, varied path, that it must be from a real survey. That kind of data would be very useful if we had it for the whole park.

Someone with time and energy should do a survey. I guess GPS wouldn't be accurate enough. What about accelerometers in phones? Are there any apps that accurately detect altitude change down to the foot?

[mycroft16]

Re: Disneyland topography

Is this from specific information or best guesses?

It would certainly make sense that the DLRR track varies very little around its loop since it was built in 1955 on orange groves. But still the engines certainly could pull their trains on grades that rise more than a couple feet. Not saying they do, just that they could. I wonder if Steve has any info on this?

Where did you get the 6-8 feet from Thunder to IASW? That's so specific over such a long, varied path, that it must be from a real survey. That kind of data would be very useful if we had it for the whole park.

Someone with time and energy should do a survey. I guess GPS wouldn't be accurate enough. What about accelerometers in phones? Are there any apps that accurately detect altitude change down to the foot?

I am actually working on building up the data. The difference between railroad stations is from a very solid source who knows that railroad inside and out as well as some trig. The rise from thunder to iasw is a best guess based on relative heights to the railroad track. It may be off by a foot or two, but it's going to be pretty accurate.

I will be back in Feb and will be doing more GPS readings, which are accurate enough with a good enough fix, to get a decent read. I have some already. This is something that has interested me for many years and is something I pay a great deal of attention too when in the park as it is one of the most subtle and tricky ways Disney has to fool you into thinking you are where you aren't.

[Deanna]

Re: Disneyland topography

I am actually working on building up the data.

That's really cool.

[Bob Weaver]

Re: Disneyland topography

When they built Space Mountain, the first thing they did was excavate a crater of earth 17 feet deep. This was so that Space Mountain would sit lower and thus not dwarf the castle or the Matterhorn.

[sbk1234]

Re: Disneyland topography

If you really want to have fun exploring Disneyland's topography, just check out the google maps for it close up view (you can rotate it around too)

disneyland - Google Maps

.

GOOGLE Maps needs to update their picture. They're done with Cars Land already!!

[Mojave]

Re: Disneyland topography

I am actually working on building up the data. The difference between railroad stations is from a very solid source who knows that railroad inside and out as well as some trig. The rise from thunder to iasw is a best guess based on relative heights to the railroad track. It may be off by a foot or two, but it's going to be pretty accurate.

I will be back in Feb and will be doing more GPS readings, which are accurate enough with a good enough fix, to get a decent read. I have some already. This is something that has interested me for many years and is something I pay a great deal of attention too when in the park as it is one of the most subtle and tricky ways Disney has to fool you into thinking you are where you aren't.

That's excellent news! This type of thing, in general, but also at Disneyland, interests me quite a bit as well.

Is Steve your source on the DLRR track/station info?

Even with 7 or 8 satellites, there still is an accuracy problem of many feet. So I'd be worried if this was your only data since in a lot of cases, the altitude changes are indeed only going to be in the less than 10 feet range, with an error about that much. If you are using DLRR data, that will obviously help backup the GPS data in the near vicinity of the stations/track, but not as you move away from them.

Good luck with your project! This will be awesome. I may do some GPS measurements when I'm up there next. Getting a consensus on some points would be valuable.

[mycroft16]

Re: Disneyland topography

Is Steve your source on the DLRR track/station info?

He is indeed.

Even with 7 or 8 satellites, there still is an accuracy problem of many feet. So I'd be worried if this was your only data since in a lot of cases, the altitude changes are indeed only going to be in the less than 10 feet range, with an error about that much. If you are using DLRR data, that will obviously help backup the GPS data in the near vicinity of the stations/track, but not as you move away from them.

This is an issue, so I do take into account the accuracy/error data on my GPS as well as do multiple readings when I can. I would love to get my hands on a commercial grade GPS unit. Those are a little out of my price range though.

All that said though, what I'm more interested in is the change in elevation as opposed to the actual elevations themselves. So as long as the measurement accuracy at point A and point B is the same, the difference between them will be accurate even if the actual elevations are not. So that helps. Were I building an actual elevation model, which I would love to do, this wouldn't work very well unless I had an accurate start point and could interpolate from there.

Good luck with your project! This will be awesome. I may do some GPS measurements when I'm up there next. Getting a consensus on some points would be valuable.

Thanks. We'll have to share data.

[Bob Weaver]

Re: Disneyland topography

The elevation of Disneyland, according to the sign at the main entrance, is 138 feet above sea level. Assuming it’s the same at the base of the Matterhorn, and the height of the Matterhorn is 147 feet, then the elevation at the summit of the Matterhorn is 285 feet above sea level. By contrast, the summit of Mount Whitney in California, was recently re-calculated as 14,505 feet above sea level, more than 50 times the elevation of the Matterhorn’s summit. If you were to start with the existing Matterhorn and stack 147-foot-tall Matterhorns one on top of the other, it would take 96 of them to reach the same elevation as the top of Mt. Whitney. By the way, there is another Matterhorn in California, in Yosemite National Park.

[Mojave]

Re: Disneyland topography

All that said though, what I'm more interested in is the change in elevation as opposed to the actual elevations themselves. So as long as the measurement accuracy at point A and point B is the same, the difference between them will be accurate even if the actual elevations are not. So that helps. Were I building an actual elevation model, which I would love to do, this wouldn't work very well unless I had an accurate start point and could interpolate from there.

This only works if the errors are always in the same direction. If one point is in error 10 feet above the actual altitude and another point is in error 10 feet below the actual altitude, well you see the problem.

The elevation of Disneyland, according to the sign at the main entrance, is 138 feet above sea level.

Useful as a starting point, definitely.

Assuming it’s the same at the base of the Matterhorn, and the height of the Matterhorn is 147 feet, then the elevation at the summit of the Matterhorn is 285 feet above sea level. By contrast, the summit of Mount Whitney in California, was recently re-calculated as 14,505 feet above sea level, more than 50 times the elevation of the Matterhorn’s summit. If you were to start with the existing Matterhorn and stack 147-foot-tall Matterhorns one on top of the other, it would take 96 of them to reach the same elevation as the top of Mt. Whitney. By the way, there is another Matterhorn in California, in Yosemite National Park.

This makes me laugh! It's interesting information, but a really odd tangent to take.

[Disneyland 1951]

Re: Disneyland topography

My memory is that the entire Disneyland site: Ball - Harbor - Katella - West (Disney Way) was pretty flat.

The north / East corner had my dads Trailer Factory with mostly orange groves, along Harbor near the old entrance was our friends the Peltzers farm, and the southern half was mostly farm fields. I kinda remember the Dominguez house, but never went over to that area.

My estimate was/is that Katella is about 20-25' lower than Ball Road.

Looking at a running map showing nearby Walnut it shows an elevation of 139' even with the DL entrance (vs 138' listed at the DL entrance) then drops to 126' at Katella. This is a 13' drop from the entrance to Katella. If you look at Main Street, Town Square is lower than the Hub.

The entire plane from Anahiem Hills to the ocean is a thin layer of topsoil over ocean sand with no hills until you get near the ocean. And drops an average of 9.2'/ mile.

The Matterhorn is a steel building and is not topography. Disney built nearly all the hills and low spots. Tom Sawyers Island is about 20' high, but many areas are lower and a a few a little higher. The entrance to Toontown drops about 25' below the railroad, but the highest spot in Disneyland is near Rodger Rabbit, and the lowest would be the SW corner of California Adventure. All water drains nearly due south.

Jack

[mratigan]

Re: Disneyland topography

Ok let's say the railway is 1.0
Most of the park is at 0.0
we enter below the tracks (about 0.0)
NOS is rising up to 1.0
In front of the drop on SM we are at about 1.5
everything behind the castle and big thunder is at 1.0 also
you rise up and head down on autopia because you are above the subs
The tunnel you see in the gates by FL and the BTR is the same as the one for the skyway, right?

[mycroft16]

Re: Disneyland topography

The entrance to Toontown drops about 25' below the railroad

Since I can reach my hands up and almost touch the bottom of the bridge, and given that 25 feet is a 2 story building, I'm going to say that the entrance walkway to Toontown is actually at most about 11 feet below the railroad tracks.

[Steve DeGaetano]

Re: Disneyland topography

He is indeed.

I am?


Mycroft is correct--the railroad is pretty level. There did used to be a couple grades--the steepest being near the Rivers of America. When the railroad tracks were replaced back in 2004/2005, the contractor re-graded much of the line to make it nearly level.

The grade that was back near the ROA was fairly steep--and by "steep" I mean that the average guest probably couldn't even see it. But with trains, even nearly-invisible grades can stall a train. Indeed, if a fully-loaded train being pulled by the Holliday or Ripley had to stop on that grade, it might not be able to start again--in which case it would need to reverese to the bottom, and then get another run at it.