The mayor of Anaheim, CA has come out in favor of a monorail to connect the Disneyland Resort and the Anaheim Convention Center to the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station, which will be moved slightly and reconstructed as an intermodal transit center.
I live in Anaheim and think this is a bad idea, but I do not have very many arguments to support my opinion should I speak against it. Can I get the members of this forum to supply me with some arguments along with the sources, if possible?
The distance involved is about 2.5 to 3 miles and it is a point-to-point system rather than a loop as in Disneyland. It pretty much has to run along the middle of local streets, which are quite wide.
Part of the mayor's rationale is that a monorail would, because Disneyland uses one, have some sort of symbolic solidarity with the city's major revenue producer. Ok, O can see that, but I still think it is a bad idea.
Jack
Sorry to have to say this, but I think it would be a GOOD idea. Beats all whatsis out of a bunch of diesel-stinking, traffic-snarling, air-polluting busses.
At least yours would have logical start and end points. Here in Las Vegas they decided to build the middle first, then feigned surprise when ridership didn't develop as expected. Now they've finally figured out that it should extend to the airport. No telling when, if ever, it will reach downtown. In the meantime the transit district has added a bunch of articulated super-busses to the already abominable traffic on the Strip...
Chuck
Long Live the Monorail.
The only arguement is that you are in earthquake country and if something strong enough to worry about sinks the state into the Pacific, we will be a smaller nation.
If you get monorails the way Disney has done thiers... world class service.
I have ridden a very small (I mean SMALL...) monos like 3 lifetimes ago that since have been replaced by a newer system at a park called :Dutch Wonderland.
If you find that little park.. a cookie for you.
Maglevs are nothing more than Monorails beefed up for flight.
Dutch Wonderland - east of Lancaster, PA on Rt. 30 (now owned by Hershey Entertainment) Can I have my cookie?
I don't know... monorails didn't work out on the Simpsons...
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Depends what the monorail is supposed to do. If "image" is the primary consideration (as opposed to cost or utility), then something as seemingly modernistic and wiz bang as a monorail might make some sense. Think of it as primarily an amusement park ride. But if it's supposed to be real transit operation there are lots of objections. Here are two:
(i) Switches on a monorail are major, expensive pieces of engineering. They are essentially transfer tables where the whole supporting structure has to move, not just running rails on top of the supporting structure. This might not be a problem on an amusement park ride, but it would be a big problem on a real transit operation requiring multiple switches;
(ii) A monorail requires an elevated structure, since the structure itself is the guideway. Either the trains hang from one or (more often) ride on top of one but, in either case, the structure must be elevated above the ground. You can't just lay a monorail guideway on the ground like you can with conventional track. And, when today's elevated structure becomes tomorrow's eyesore and you want to bring it underground, the tunnels have to be big enough for the supporting structure as well as the trains - a huge additional expense over conventional two rail.
Finally, I can't pretend to be a great expert on monorail engineering, but I've ridden some of them and, frankly, they didn't seem to me to have any real advantages from a transit rider's perspective over a more conventional (and cheaper) two rail system. The Disneyworld monorail system, for example, is actually slower than modern light rail systems and, when you go beneath the glossy exterior of its trains and get to contol, propulsion and signalling, appears to be very similar to the CTA 'L' . The old Seattle monorail system had a definite gallop, as each supporting pier, over time, appeared to have become a high spot in the guideway. This type of irregularity could easily be adjusted on a two rail system, since all you have to do is adjust the geometry of the running rails. But on a monorail, it requires the supporting structure itself to be adjusted.
Bottom line is that a monorail costs more than a comparable two rail system, and doesn't have any advantages over conventional systems.
Falcon48 wrote: Bottom line is that a monorail costs more than a comparable two rail system, and doesn't have any advantages over conventional systems.
From what the original poster said, I gather that they are looking at an overhead system. If you must have an overhead system, a monorail is quieter than a two rail system, and has a smaller "footprint."
An "expensive model collector"
It works in Vegas, Tokyo, Yokohama, Seattle and inside 4 Dizzyworlds, can be build over existing roadways without major disruptions, and theres already a pool of employees experienced with monorails there in Anahiem, why not do this, its a good idea, as opposed to what? light rail which would necessitate tearing up roadways and potentail car/train conflicts? Buses? thats all the exisiting roads need, more bluewhale size busses clogging the roadways...
Why oppose it, or is this just another example of that "not with my tax dollars" anti-taxation whining those behind the Orange Curtain are so adept at.
I got a better idea, get a private investment group to build a toll road, charge $9 one way on the SpeedPass to drive 2 miles from the station to the park, then complain to Caltrans that they cannot keep up maintanence and that they need state funding to stay open.
Have fun with your trains
During the early stages of determining what type of rail system to build in Dallas, monorail was on the table. As I remember the argument, there were a number of objections to it. At the end of the debate Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) opted for light rail.
At the time there was only one manufacturer in the world that could supply the equipment for an extensive monorail system. It is a bad idea to lock onto one supplier; he has you by the throat when it comes to maintenance and the acquisition of additional equipment.
Switching from one route to another, as has been mention, is a big challenge for monorails.
The overhead apparatus to support the monorail is ugly. Admittedly, this is a personal preference. I spent a lot of time in Sydney, Australia whilst living in Australia. The Sydney monorail is an eyesore.
If a monorail train breaks down between stations, the passengers have to be evacuated by ladder. As a rule the fire department has to be called or the transit agency has to have the equivalent of a hook and ladder truck. Getting older or infirmed passengers off the train is a daunting task.
The stations are expensive to build. They all require escalators as well as stairs and perhaps elevators. Light rail stations and heavy rail stations only require escalators if they are located under ground or on an elevated line. As an example, DART has only two stations with escalators. All the other stations are at ground level.
One of the advantages of the light rail system in Dallas is that it permits an across the platform transfer to the Trinity Railway Express trains. If Dallas had opted for a monorail, the transfer would have been much more difficult.
I personally dont care if the station is 100 feet underground like Metro Center in Washington DC or 50 feet up in the air.
You still need to move people that is part of the cost of doing business.
Anyone can get into the Monorail business as long they understand how to build a one beam bridge and necessary parts to make it all work.
Thinking about this further, perhaps the monorail is dead long before it really kicks in because other things such as Moller Skycars and similar protoypes are approaching if not already being certified for service in the USA.
Since I am (unfortunately) familiar with the traffic conditions in and near Anaheim, I would have to say that anything that adds to or disrupts surface street traffic is NOT an option! In that respect, monorail construction would be much less of a problem, and monorail operation would mean only one T-pillar every 200 feet or so to obstruct traffic.
After all, what are the other options? Surface light rail? I shudder to think about it, both while under construction and later. Busses? See my original post. Subway? Sure - at ten times the cost, and even less accessible than monorail in the event of between-stations breakdown. Elevated rail? Just plain ugly, and more expensive to build. (With a monorail, support structure and track are the same. Not so for two rails in the sky.)
Of course, the City of Anaheim could do nothing - which would give me an excellent reason to stay north of Cajon Pass on I-15! You folks need my tourist dollars lots more than I need your traffic hassle!
I neglected to mention a critically important issue that applies to any expensive guideway system, whether two rail or monorail. Where's the market for it? I don't live in California, although I get out there alot. Until very recently, there wasn't even a bus service between Amtrak and Disneyland. Late last year, an outfit called Anaheim Resort Transit established an hourly service, apparently using small "trolley" type touring busses. It would be interesting to see what kind of passenger loads they handle to/from Amtrak over the next 12 months. But it doesn't sound like they are anticipating the kind of patronage that would warrant construction of an expensive fixed guideway system. My guess is that they expect their traffic to consist mostly of employees of the resorts in the area commuting to/from work.
Actually, that shouldn't be surprising. As railfans, we all sometimes assume, without thinking much about it, that most people like trains as much as we do, and will use a rail alternative if one is made available. But pretend for a moment that you're not a railfan. Pretend that you're an ordinary parent who's not particularly interested in trains, and you want to take your family to Disneyland for a day. Why would you even consider loading everyone in the car, driving to a commuter rail station and parking there, waiting for the train, transfering to the monorail (or whatever) at Anaheim, and then riding to the park, when you can simply stay in your car and drive the whole family directly to the Disneyland parking lot. Sure, there will be lots of traffic, but it will likely still be faster (and certainly more convenient) than the transit alternative. And, if you're a tourist, you won't even consider the option of using an unfamiliar commuter rail system. This is definitely not a situation where "if you build it, they will come."
Some additional information on the notion that switching "tracks" is a problem. Newark Liberty International Airport uses a point to point system with rotating beam switches that reconfigure within 30 seconds of activation.
http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/switch.html
My own humble opinion is that monorails are good if you never really want to go anywhere beyond the initial "a" to "b" on a map (like within the specific boundaries of an airport), don't mind custom equipment that will require specialized maintenance and the fact that the system may require a custom build to replace the cars at the end of the service life span.
So if the transit plan is limited to shuttle trips between these two "venues", then a monorail might make sense, but so could buses or other modes. If the plan "ever" could be expanded to include linking these venues with the rest of the world to provide a single seat ride, then monorail may have built in limitations in speed, ride quality at speed, cost to build custom equipment, loading gauge limiting capacity or requiring longer (or MU'd) trains, and ??? Power distribution and signaling would probably be the same for any rail mode.
Light rail on an elevated or mixed elevated and at-grade system could provide more flexibility IF there are ever any plans to extend the system to other destinations (ie. to bring people from other areas (LAX?) to Disneyland or the convention center. Although I may be mistaken, isn't there a dedicated light rail line linking Hong Kong's airport and Disney HK? (http://www.hongkongairport.com/eng/aguide/airportex.html)
I try to use transit when I'm traveling on business -- Marta in Atlanta from the airport to downtown for conventions or business meetings, DC metro from WAS to Alexandria or the mall, etc. I just visited Portland for the first time and had I taken their light rail, I would have saved a lot of time -- I didn't realize that it ran past the building where my meeting was scheduled. If I do a return trip, I will ditch the rental car and use their trolley instead.
The problem with LAX (and many cities) is that the only option is a city transit bus to the trolley, a cab or a rental car.....more airports have added a single seat rail ride to downtown from the airport (Cleveland, Philly, Chicago, Minneapolis, Portland, St. Louis, Boston(?), etc.)
Paul F.
It used to be a battle to get downtown and park your car. Today you can still park your car downtown but need a few dollars in the off hours to keep it from getting vandalized.
When Baltimore opened thier subway it was much better to park at a outlying station, ride the subway down and run around downtown on foot. Even if you were on a wheel chair you could still do it really easily.
The big secret to Baltimore is what I call the "Skyway" completely possible to get from the downtown station to the harbor without having to cross a street on surface level on foot.
I understand that light rail ties into BWI which is growing in strength each year.
If Anaheim really needs to put public transit in the air, I think it can do better than monorails. If it has to be in the air, rather than monorails I think people movers have shown their mettle over shortish distances of no more than a couple miles that need to include many stops.
This kind of gets into the idea as to what classes of public-transit elevate well. In the USA and IMHO modern El's are problematic. In Chicago land-acquisition of the northernmost stretch of what is now known as the Red Line L (that's how we spell it in Chi), Wilson Ave. to Howard Street (border w/Evanston), was built thru a partially rural area. I saw a charming print at one of the local historical societies some years ago, of a cow grazing as the brand-new El hustles by in the background. This was circa 1906 -- others reading this I hope will have the exact date. Point is, land acquisition was almost scratch. But that was 102 years ago! Note also that all of Chicago's L extensions post-1960 (except Midway's Orange Line) were built using significant amounts of expressway median.
OTOH look at he example of L.A.'s Blue Line, which looks very LRT to me with its pantograph and meduim-length trainsets. But the Blue Line IIRC has been a little disappointing in terms of ridership compared to the other LRT lines and the Wilshire subway. Fear of crime has something to do with it, too, but IIRC the decision to go "el" and pay for elevated structures, bridges, and stations, vs. to pay more in land-acquisition and run surface was a close call -- and a large part of it may be not wanting to p.o. the owners of the warehouses and such that comprise part of its trip by closing thru service streets for a dedicated ROW. That's legitimate. What is also likely, though, is that if that LRT had been built mostly on the ground, it would probably have around twice as many stations. (And therefore be much more convenient.)
San Diego, where the downtown S.D. Trolley stations are basically like long bus shelters a couple of blocks apart, seems largely to set the pattern of a ground-level LRT that is very efficient getting people into transit downtown, where they work or shop. Most American systems that I know of are like that -- run mostly on the ground, stop often downtown, and only go across bridges, usurp or take part of freight lines, or go to freshly-built "El" only when they have to (cf. St. Louis).
So all this begs the question: who is going to be hauled where at whose expense and is elevated necessarily the right way to go? Have any cost-benefit studies been conducted? If you want an LRT systems, companies like Germany's Siemens can build you a turnkey system whether it's a ground-runner or something almost as intensive as "classic" heavy-rail Rapid Transit. Go to www dot siemens [note spelling] dot com to see some photos of different kinds of their turnkey systems.
There remains the possibility that the Monorail in a country like China can be successful due to popularity; we visitors are impressed but really don't and can't know the background behind its implementation. It may have cost a good-sized fortune in Yuans or social displacement. China likes to invite in companies from capitalist countries, but in the last analysis it is an authoritarian, communist society, what economists call a "command economy," and if the gummit wants it, the people get it.
1) Has the city of Anaheim done any preliminary studies on who needs to be moved, from where to where and at what cost. And the environmental and other factors? When El's come, some people are going to have their quality of life impacted for the worst with little benefit to themselves. Some NIMBY's are sillier than others, or more obnoxious.
2) Do any of the companies who have built what appear to be successful monorail systems in parts of the world outside N. America have their own "turn-key" systems to sell to us, as Siemens and other companies do with LRT?
To me, buying a monorail because you think it looks cool is akin to a cash-strapped family whose father buys a Corvette because the salesman persuaded him it was the best basic transportation for families.
Jack_S wrote: The mayor of Anaheim, CA has come out in favor of a monorail to connect the Disneyland Resort and the Anaheim Convention Center to the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station, which will be moved slightly and reconstructed as an intermodal transit center.I live in Anaheim and think this is a bad idea, but I do not have very many arguments to support my opinion should I speak against it. Can I get the members of this forum to supply me with some arguments along with the sources, if possible?The distance involved is about 2.5 to 3 miles and it is a point-to-point system rather than a loop as in Disneyland. It pretty much has to run along the middle of local streets, which are quite wide. Part of the mayor's rationale is that a monorail would, because Disneyland uses one, have some sort of symbolic solidarity with the city's major revenue producer. Ok, O can see that, but I still think it is a bad idea.Jack
Read attach link...
http://bicycleaustin.info/rail/monorail.html
I live just outside Anaheim city limits. Where does the mayor think he's going to get the funds for the monorail?
Looks like a financial checkmate to this O.C. resident.
Ham Radio wrote: I live just outside Anaheim city limits. Where does the mayor think he's going to get the funds for the monorail?Anaheim already has a high occupancy tax on hotel rooms. You can only bleed the tourist business so much.City governments in CA cannot unilaterally impose a sales tax. County transportation Measure M projects are already allocated countywide, and any attempt to hijack funds would meet with stiff resistance from other cities.The State of California doesn't have surplus funds and other cities/counties would likely fight it to protect their pet projects funding.The feds are iffy, at best.Looks like a financial checkmate to this O.C. resident.
Good old Bond issue is how I bet.
We are financing a new water tower to be built using bonds to finance it for the next 20 years to pay for the thing. Without that water tower we cannot sustain our boomtown growth on that part of town.
I worry about the Market because there is noise about Bonds going bad.
Of course someone can step in and make a nice multimillion dollar contribution as long they get to brand the thing.
Falls Valley RR wrote: Ham Radio wrote: I live just outside Anaheim city limits. Where does the mayor think he's going to get the funds for the monorail?Anaheim already has a high occupancy tax on hotel rooms. You can only bleed the tourist business so much.City governments in CA cannot unilaterally impose a sales tax. County transportation Measure M projects are already allocated countywide, and any attempt to hijack funds would meet with stiff resistance from other cities.The State of California doesn't have surplus funds and other cities/counties would likely fight it to protect their pet projects funding.The feds are iffy, at best.Looks like a financial checkmate to this O.C. resident. Good old Bond issue is how I bet.We are financing a new water tower to be built using bonds to finance it for the next 20 years to pay for the thing. Without that water tower we cannot sustain our boomtown growth on that part of town.I worry about the Market because there is noise about Bonds going bad.Of course someone can step in and make a nice multimillion dollar contribution as long they get to brand the thing.
A muni with a decent rate will probably hold up better than most bonds, unless it is of "junk" quality.
al-in-chgo wrote: Falls Valley RR wrote: Ham Radio wrote: I live just outside Anaheim city limits. Where does the mayor think he's going to get the funds for the monorail?Anaheim already has a high occupancy tax on hotel rooms. You can only bleed the tourist business so much.City governments in CA cannot unilaterally impose a sales tax. County transportation Measure M projects are already allocated countywide, and any attempt to hijack funds would meet with stiff resistance from other cities.The State of California doesn't have surplus funds and other cities/counties would likely fight it to protect their pet projects funding.The feds are iffy, at best.Looks like a financial checkmate to this O.C. resident. Good old Bond issue is how I bet.We are financing a new water tower to be built using bonds to finance it for the next 20 years to pay for the thing. Without that water tower we cannot sustain our boomtown growth on that part of town.I worry about the Market because there is noise about Bonds going bad.Of course someone can step in and make a nice multimillion dollar contribution as long they get to brand the thing.A muni with a decent rate will probably hold up better than most bonds, unless it is of "junk" quality.
Hi Al,
Point well taken.
I'm not familiar with Anaheim's municipal debt rating (Moody's, S&P) and I don't know how much Anaheim can float bond-wise before it adversely affects their rating. They are still going to need a income stream for any debt obligation and it just isn't in the cards that I can see.
You can bet Disneyland Resort is going to have a big say in this either way. In Orlando, a monorail was proposed to run from the airport to WDW. The local governments wanted it to make several stops in the area, including other attractions, while Disney wanted an exclusive express to its front door. When local governments dug in, Disney effectively killed the project by denying it access to its property. They can (and will) play hardball when needed. (full disclosure: we are annual passholders to Disneyland Resorts as we live very close).
Ham Radio wrote: al-in-chgo wrote: Falls Valley RR wrote: Ham Radio wrote: I live just outside Anaheim city limits. Where does the mayor think he's going to get the funds for the monorail?Anaheim already has a high occupancy tax on hotel rooms. You can only bleed the tourist business so much.City governments in CA cannot unilaterally impose a sales tax. County transportation Measure M projects are already allocated countywide, and any attempt to hijack funds would meet with stiff resistance from other cities.The State of California doesn't have surplus funds and other cities/counties would likely fight it to protect their pet projects funding.The feds are iffy, at best.Looks like a financial checkmate to this O.C. resident. Good old Bond issue is how I bet.We are financing a new water tower to be built using bonds to finance it for the next 20 years to pay for the thing. Without that water tower we cannot sustain our boomtown growth on that part of town.I worry about the Market because there is noise about Bonds going bad.Of course someone can step in and make a nice multimillion dollar contribution as long they get to brand the thing.A muni with a decent rate will probably hold up better than most bonds, unless it is of "junk" quality.Hi Al,Point well taken.I'm not familiar with Anaheim's municipal debt rating (Moody's, S&P) and I don't know how much Anaheim can float bond-wise before it adversely affects their rating. They are still going to need a income stream for any debt obligation and it just isn't in the cards that I can see. You can bet Disneyland Resort is going to have a big say in this either way. In Orlando, a monorail was proposed to run from the airport to WDW. The local governments wanted it to make several stops in the area, including other attractions, while Disney wanted an exclusive express to its front door. When local governments dug in, Disney effectively killed the project by denying it access to its property. They can (and will) play hardball when needed. (full disclosure: we are annual passholders to Disneyland Resorts as we live very close).
Sounds like the people at WDW near Orlando got their backs up just because they were confronted with reality.
Sure, if I were Disney and connected with WDW (or the original Anaheim DL), I guess someone could suggest that someone other than they (local/ regional gov't, meaning the taxpayers in some wise, if not immediately than ultimately), pay for a brand-new monorail. And that it would make no intermediate stops. And that it would effectively preclude any other mode of rapid-transit type ops from the airport to the community; or at least such a "sweetheart" Disney monoRR terminal at the airport would usurp the most efficient location of a terminal for some other mode of transit to run between the airport and destinations within the metro area or community.
As the young people say: As. If.
I can think of few successful corporations less in need of corporate welfare than Disney. (Actually if the corps. are already financially successful I'm not sure why any of them should be getting corporate welfare, although not everyone is as libtertarian-ish as I am.)
Should Disney be allowed to monopolize (or come close to monopolizing) rapid-transit from the airport terminal? Well, sure, as long as local planning districts have no plan for something that needed the same terminal space as its terminus, and if in Anaheim DL or parent corp. paid for everything, and that no laws be passed or altered beyond those already in place that would permit them extra license in land-condemnation or "eminent domain."
AND if they need to borrow $$$ to finish the scheme, they can float the bond in the private market, not as a muni.
AND, since the UMTA of 1971 effectively bans private for-profit (not that there'd be any) corporations from operating public transit, the fare for rides on the thing (I didn't say cost, I said fares) would be bundled into any admission tickets to DL/WDW (good the day of admission thru the day after the ticket expires, for departing guests); and that rides to and from work be free for all employees of the Corp. going to or from duty. I suppose, being Disney, they could declare the thing a type of specialty ride for people who don't fit the category above; and if so they could charge as much $$$ as they calculate they could that would nonetheless appeal to R-T foamers like me. IOW capitalism in, capitalism out.
Why is it that big corporations seem to come up with these pie-in-the-sky notions when THEY themselves have nothing to lose?
If you think I'm being excessively hard-nosed or stingy about granting WDW, DL or the Disney corp license to build-operate the monorail, if it is up to local gov't grant building licenses, etc., then isn't such a governing body's guiding principle supposed to be cui bono, Latin for "whose benefit"? If not in the interest of the citizens/taxpayers, then why go out of the way to enable Disney?
I do understand that a high-speed, nonstop monorail might benefit Disney guests. It might also encourage such visitors to forego renting a car since they'd be "freighted" right into the Magic Kingdom. Many guests might decide to stay an extra couple of days inside the Magic Kingdom, preventing side trips to Universal Studios, if such came to pass and they had no private vehicle. IOW such a monorail is pretty much structured to benefit no one but Disney, and they would benefit in face and finances while the people who live around them would go wanting.
Consider that Disney is a for-profit corporation, and in such [unlikely] case that they would call for a nonstop dedicated monorail and actually pretend to pay for most of it . . . well, I'm simply advocating that the Disney corp. play by the same rules as the local Subway. Or the local Macy's. Or the local freight shortline for that matter, etc.
OTOH, H.R., as passholders you and your family could
blue streak 1 wrote:there is a very hard engineering item that all have overlooked. Those of you that have ridden any monorail may have noticed that it is slow. Why? monorails are dynamically unstable above a certain speed (usually 25-35 mph depending on design). Disney runs 25 mph according to my GPS. This severly limits its usefullness over any significant distance. The Germans in the 1930's had this on their overhead monorail system and could not overcome the problem. The aerospace industry has built many air force airplanes that are also unstable. Active controls to prevent this problem are in place but very very expensive. and god forbid a power failure to the computer controlling the controls. (Bailout). monotail passengers cannot bailout. Any one know speeds of monorails around the country?
You're absolutely right on the money re: speed and I thank you for putting it in good understandable technical language. I've ridden the mono-r in Vegas, and to spare all the blather of my earlier posts, the L.V. monorail doesn't get above about 30 mph. If you say that is an inherent limitation in that type of motor/traction, you must be right. The "rail" (concrete) of the Vegas mono. is made of concrete--bumpy concrete. It was almost impossible for standees headed from the Convention Center to the (south end of the) Strip to stay afoot when the train reached top speed, which might have been pushing 35 at most.
I don't know if the newer, post-mid-Seventies type of motors that can make Light Rail much faster than 1930s streetcars would be applicable here. If so, someone should say it here.....
Thanks, al smalling
The Disney monorail in Orlando that runs from Epcot to the Ticket and Transportation Center runs at 45MPH.
n012944 wrote: blue streak 1 wrote:there is a very hard engineering item that all have overlooked. Those of you that have ridden any monorail may have noticed that it is slow. Why? monorails are dynamically unstable above a certain speed (usually 25-35 mph depending on design). Disney runs 25 mph according to my GPS. This severly limits its usefullness over any significant distance. The Germans in the 1930's had this on their overhead monorail system and could not overcome the problem. The aerospace industry has built many air force airplanes that are also unstable. Active controls to prevent this problem are in place but very very expensive. and god forbid a power failure to the computer controlling the controls. (Bailout). monotail passengers cannot bailout. Any one know speeds of monorails around the country? The Disney monorail in Orlando that runs from Epcot to the Ticket and Transportation Center runs at 45MPH.
One of the past spiels on the Disneyland monorail was that it was capable of 45MPH running. I suspect that the trains were never rin that fast at Disneyland due to the generally short tangents and relatively sharp curves on the line. The Alweg system isn't a classic monorail (i.e. steel wheel rolling on a single steel rail), but a rubber tired vehicle running on a very narrow concrete road with a guideway and electrical pickup. The styling is very reminiscent of the early streamlined trains.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.