gardendanceAm I the only one who sees big contradiction between your saying monorails need only have a moveable bridge for every at grade crossing, yet light rail somehow cannot eliminate the pre-PCC relatively poor ride quality despite having so much track structure and alignment?
I was only playing devil's advocate; you might note my comment about why no one would actually build a monorail line that required grade crossings. The Lartigue and Boynton systems are largely artifacts of the same era as the early Phoenix bridges, which use an enormous amount of (then-cheap) riveting and fabrication to make best use of the (then-expensive) metal. No point, in my opinion, in doing monorail anywhere BUT on a grade-separated line (especially one where the physical real-estate acquisition can be limited to the pylons and station accesses).
Light rail can, and often does, eliminate poor ride quality. That is particularly true when properly-built top-down construction is used for the alignment, and proper elastomer in the track as well as the cars is used...
And your only example is Memphis's line, which despite you saying Memphis touts it as a real transportation system certainly looks like a heritage line, walks like a heritage line and quacks like a heritage line.
And clatters and sparks, in most places, just like a heritage line. The problem is that its cars cost what a light rail line's would, and the system cost for the extension was that of a proper light-rail line, and in places (such as the dedicated ROW in the area of Thomas Blvd and Jefferson St.) is expensively grade-separated just as a proper light rail line would be... but with none of the advantages.
I confess that I remain bitter over the proposed airport extension service, too, which, essentially for political reasons, was changed from a quick and convenient way between downtown, Central Station, and the airport into a fairly massive bus-duplicating boondoggle. Yes, I'd look at it a different way if I lived in the neighborhoods adjacent to the line, many of whom would ride the cars but never need to go between the airport and 'city center' quickly. But a major point of an expensive light-rail airport line as opposed to, say, some express buses is to provide better or quicker one-seat ride between the airport and ... wherever it is that people riding airplanes want to go.
I would note that no one seriously considered a monorail for this project, even though some posters here have repeated touted that maglev on a monorail platform ought to be cheaper than duo-rail on largely dedicated ROW for just this kind of project (there are several very complicated locations on the proposed routings where a simple overhead beam pair on pylons would be orders of magnitude lower cost in theory.) Perhaps we needed a better song?
Perhaps you can campaign that the image of Memphis will suffer if visitors arriving at the airport find a 1920's streetcar system as the touted way to get downtown.. That Memphis should stop buying historic replicas and even replace those on hand with any of the modern mass-produced LRV of a size to fit th requirements, reserving the historic replicas for special occasions or a short downtown-only regular tourist ride. And that up-to-date construction be used on the extension.
My understanding of the 'current' state of the project is that a relatively modern type of LRV would be used for the airport line -- ISTR there is some discussion of this in the 'last' version of the proposal that is or was available via MATA's Web site. One thing about the project is that the actual time involved for a downtown-to-airport trip might be fairly long; another thing is how and where the actual airport stops will be provided. Much of the advantage of 'up-to-date' track construction may be wasted under the circumstances.
I am of the opinion that much of the 'gain' of better riding could be achieved by retrucking the existing (two-truck 'heritage') cars. (Perhaps with some of those PCC trucks that no one seems to want... but that is another story!) I won't go into the pros and cons of that idea any further... except to note that it would be fully reversible and none of the existing trucks or electrical equipment would be scrapped as a result!
Out of curiosity: How often does the light-rail system in Jerusalem do rail grinding or other track maintenance? I have acquired the opinion that a good LRV design is well-enough suspended, and carefully-enough braked, that it allows much longer intervals for track maintenance even where older solid track structure, or track with non-ideal line, surface, and railhead profile, is the norm.
As far as I know in the three years since test opration began and the 2-1/2 years of public operation there has been no rail-grinding either needed or done. Operators are careful to use the magnetic track brakes only in emergencies and make a conscious effort to give riders a smooth ride, including moving the controler handle to almost zero braking when coming to a stop, then using full service position to hold the car. It is a well-run system. Very rarely do I hear the pock-pock-pock of a flat spot, and they seem to get a train with one such pair of wheels off-line very quickly. They do perform wheel grinding and truing. About a year ago some cars developed squeel on sharp curves, and they experimented with different profiles until the problem was completely solved. All rail currently is girder rail, even in the grassed areas (which have a concret base like the paved track) except possibly for T-rail in the yard and shop.
I have ridden the monorails in Seattle, Disney World, and Disney Land. I had forgotton about the NYWF.
No monorails in Israel. But the subway system in Haifa is a unique one line two train single track with middle passing siding funicular. Works well. Six symmetrically spaced stations. Steep climb. Stepped rolling stock and station platforms. One four-car train has inside-flanged wheels and the other outside flanged, and this determines which track each occupies at the passing point. Named "Th Carmelleet".
Somewhat south of the center citiy is the "Rakball" A steep arial tramway with four-seater glass bubbles as cars. Like Grenoble, France.
It looks like most of us are preaching to the choir on this one.
One of my friends once worked as a part-time engineer for the Disneyland ALWEG monorail. He'd tell me horror stories about tire blow-outs (yes, they are rubber tires running alongside the track) and the times when passengers would get stranded due to the system going down...and it's 89 degrees outside...and the air conditioning system is not functioning.
In traditional LRT or subway, passengers can safely exit the train at nearly any point in the line and evacuate during an emergency. Not so easily with a monorail.
I rode the Seattle monorail five years ago. I've ridden on 3rd world buses that gave me a smoother ride!
Monorails are great for circulating systems within a small area -- which is the reason why you only really see monorails in airports, amusement parks and fairgrounds. No major city in the world uses a monorail as their primary form of rapid transit.
In Los Angeles, where I live, I still hear of people who complain, "Why do we have subways in L.A. when we should be having monorails?" A sign of true ignorance. Do you want that monorail to block your sunshine? Do you want to be stranded up in the air during an earthquake? Subways, like Mexico City, San Francisco and Tokyo have proven during major temblors, are safer places to be during an earthquake.
Rather than build a high speed rail line from Orlando to Tampa, I could see a monorail cover the area instead, while keeping with the general theme of Disney World. I might be a lot easier to add a monorail from MCO Orlando Airport to Disney; and then on to Tampa, with station stops at major tourist areas and towns. I-4 west of Orlando would be suitable since it has a seperated roadway with a fairly wide grass area in the middle. In Tampa, the line could go on to TPA Tampa Airport and across to St Petersburg.
And here, folks, is part of the REAL reason monorails have a bad image with the public.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_vs._the_MonorailThe Simpsons, Season four, Episode 12.The feasibility, or lack thereof, of actual monorails aside (and the evidence suggests that it doesn't really work or match its promise), this Simpsons episode from twenty-plus years ago struck a chord with millions of Americans, in no small part because there have been many transit operations, rail and otherwise, built on over-reaching promises that failed to be realized.And it has been latched onto by opponents of high-speed-rail spending as a satirical rallying call, an analogy to what they see as an equally "boondoggle," wasteful, "snake oil" propositions for HSR and all the economic stimulus promised during and after construction. It's become difficult to find online discussion of HSR that doesn't include at least one link to a YouTube video of the episode's "Music Man" parody "Monorail!"Monorail salesmen had a difficult enough time selling their concepts before this episode aired. This episode nailed the coffin shut, encased it in concrete, and pitched it into the sun.....
Does anyone remember the puxh for a monorail transit system in Seattle? Taxpayer city money spent on design. And then the bids came in way way over budget and the project was scrapped.
Here is a bit of history, from Wilkapedia, pretty truthful as I remember it. I did make an effort to convince them to switch to my elevated light rail concept, which would have shared the Tunnel with the present expanding light rail system, and saved lots of money, but I got nowhere with that idea.
The effort to extend the monorail began in 1997 with the 53% to 47% passage of Initiative 41 by Seattle voters.[3] The initiative proposed a 54-mile (87 km) X-shaped monorail system extending the 1.4-mile (2.3 km) line constructed for the 1962 Seattle World's Fair. The system's construction and operation was to be carried out by a new agency, the Elevated Transportation Corporation (ETC), using private funding.
The ETC quickly determined that private entrepreneurs were not going to build a monorail system without public financial support, leading to a second monorail initiative, allowing the ETC to spend $6 million for additional studies to determine an improved monorail plan with full cost estimates and a funding package to pay for construction.[4] This initiative passed 56% to 44%[5] in 2000.
By 2002, the ETC had developed the five-line system plan that came to be called the Seattle Monorail Project. This proposal was put before the voters as Citizens Petition #1 in November 2002 which would proposed to dissolve the ETC, create a new monorail agency, construct the Green Line as the first part of the system, and enact an annual 1.4% motor-vehicle excise tax (MVET) on Seattle vehicles to fund the project.
The 2002 petition drew opposition from groups who argued that: the Green Line ridership would not be significantly different from that already achieved by Metro buses; that building an elevated line with 7-foot (2.1 m) deep concrete beams on Second Avenue in downtown would create a "wall" through the urban core; and that the monorail line should be built along the I-5 freeway corridor, among other complaints.[6]
Reflecting the increased opposition, Citizens Petition #1 passed by just 877 votes, 50.2% to 49.7%.[7] With this November 2002 passage, construction was expected to begin in autumn 2005, and be completed in 2009.
Just two years later in November 2004, a recall initiative, I-83, was put forth seeking to halt the project by forcing the city to deny the monorail agency the right to use the air space above public city streets. This fourth initiative in seven years proved unpopular with Seattle voters however, and lost 64% to 36%.
The tax to fund the project began effective June 2003,[9] and was levied annually on each car registered in the city based on the MSRP of the vehicle and a fixed depreciation table.[10] In 2005, the average monorail tax per vehicle was $130 annually.[11]
The project soon fell under intense public scrutiny, when actual revenue from the motor vehicle excise tax came in 30% under projections while projected costs rose by 10%. To bridge the shortfall, the SMP initially proposed extending the tax and bond repayments over a 50 year time horizon, resulting in nearly $9 billion in interest paid on the $2 billion construction. The plan proved highly controversial[12] and five days later the SMP withdrew its financial plan and the director and board chairman resigned under pressure.[13]
The then-Mayor Greg Nickels gave the board an ultimatum to create a new plan or lose city support for the project. A new plan was not developed, and on September 16, 2005, Nickels withdrew city support for the project.[14] While the city of Seattle could not officially stop the project, it could withhold permission to build on or above city land, as had been proposed under I-83 a year earlier. Nickels also called on the Seattle Monorail Project to put a measure on the November 2005 ballot to determine whether or not to continue with the project, marking the fifth time Seattleites would voted on the issue. This measure shortened the initial phase of the Green Line to 10.6 miles (17.1 km) with the remaining 3.4 miles (5.5 km) to be added later, and the SMP said it would dissolve itself if the measure failed.
"Proposition 1" was defeated, 65% to 35%,[15] and in response the SMP reduced staff, terminated the annual motor vehicle excise tax on Seattle vehicles.
LNER4472And it has been latched onto by opponents of high-speed-rail spending as a satirical rallying call, an analogy to what they see as an equally "boondoggle," wasteful, "snake oil" propositions for HSR and all the economic stimulus promised during and after construction.
The key difference is that while there are very few monorail systems that have been successful (Wupperthal), there are 1000s of miles of heavily-used HSR lines, operating successfully for many years.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Cincy is going thru that whole marge and the monorail thing now. No real connection to University of Cincy and no real connection to the Stadiums
I recently read about the NY World's Fair monorail. Originally it was supposed to cover the entire grounds of the fair but there wasn't enough money to do that, so it was only at one area. I wanted to ride it but my parents wouldn't let me and said it was a waste of money.
Another thing about the Simpson's monorail episode, notice the great German art-deco architecture of the station? It looked like pictures I've seen of Tempelhof airport.
54light15I recently read about the NY World's Fair monorail. Originally it was supposed to cover the entire grounds of the fair but there wasn't enough money to do that, so it was only at one area. I wanted to ride it but my parents wouldn't let me and said it was a waste of money.
When your dad is a railfan, you get to ride it. A few times! Even had the toy version they had at the gift shop. Wonder what ever happened to it?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The Schwebebahn (hanging railway) in Wuppertal, Germany, has been in continuous operation since 1901. It is a key component in the city's public transportation and commuter network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn
The Wuppertal Schwebebahn is a very interesting setup, using rail instead of a beam. Unfortunately, it still has the complex switching problems of others. How far did the gyroscopically balanced monorail come?
When you wish to build an elevated railway public transit line mostly directly over a narrow river, following the course of the river, the Shewiebebahn would be a good model. Not much use for anything else, however.
Some of it is over a street...
At Wuppertal, the end of the line over a street is where the shop is, I once saw the track move at the curve there and another car came out of the "yard" A fascinating operation, the whole framework moves sideways with a curved track on one side, and a straight track alongside it.
Speaking of the World's Fair, remember the lighting poles with the different coloured boxes? They are or were lighting up the Orange County fairgounds in Middletown, New York a few years ago. I wondered where they went.
No, no railfans in my family. I used to go by Amtrak to visit them and always had to explain myself when I got there to various relatives who asked "why did you take the train?" like I had done something wrong. I finally would say, and this would shut them up, "In order to get here." No reply to that.
Where it is over a street, about 20% of the length of the line, its "skypring" or shadowing ares is about as large as any modern elevated railway, like Miami or Vancouver.
daveklepperWhere it is over a street, about 20% of the length of the line, its "skypring" or shadowing ares is about as large as any modern elevated railway, like Miami or Vancouver.
The pillars are at an angle, so it also avoids the problems of putting pillars on the street.
blue streak 1 BNSF your sources neglect one particular item. Monorails have been found to be dynamically unstable laterally above 25 - 35 MPH. That is the reason Seattle, Disney, and others run at 25 MPH MAS.
BNSF your sources neglect one particular item. Monorails have been found to be dynamically unstable laterally above 25 - 35 MPH. That is the reason Seattle, Disney, and others run at 25 MPH MAS.
The monorails at Walt Disney World have a top speed of 40 MPH on the Epcot line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_World_Monorail_System
An "expensive model collector"
Why specify Mach airspeed for a suspended monorail? (In any case, that would be about .046 Mach, not a figure in mph, for the upper envelope... didn't your science teachers put the right stress on expressing consistent units?) ;-}
In any case, there are certainly non-Alweg monorails capable of greater stable speed. The Gyro-Dynamics system (with proper proportional control of the lateral balance masses) is one example.
What is a discussion of monorails without an illustration from the peak of the Sixties:
If passive stability is essential to you, both the Boynton and Kearney systems qualify, and their stabilizing forces are exerted at high leverage and hence very quick damping of any lateral instability.
There are ways to stabilize a box-beam Alweg system, too, involving vertical wheels and 'active suspension' techniques, combined with rough trim using the Gyro-Dynamics horizontal mass approach. That pushes the critical speed waaaaaaaaaay above 35 mph. if indeed it was inherently limited to that speed before.
Quote: The pillars are at an angle, so it also avoids the problems of putting pillars on the street.
Which can be done if desired with a conventional elevated railway. And my concept of a light elevated railway is comletely compatible with conventional rail/light rail, and has no more skyprint than monorail at its best. Simply eliminate crossties and have rails supported directly on longitunal beams, possibly wiith an occasional gauge-stability rod every 10 feet or three meters. If walkability is wanted, architectural flooring glass as is used in balconies of Portman-designed hotels and glass-bottom boats.
Ladder track! Interesting idea!
This goes back to Dr. Charles Harvey's original West Side Patent Elevated Railway from Debrosses Street and Greewich Street to 29th Street and 9th Avenue, 1868, North Amerca's first grade-separated rapid transit line, cable operated. Wood crossties were introduced when steam replaced cable. Around 1870-1871.
I just googled the George Bennie Railplane! Holy you-know-what is all I can say.
In the first clip from British Pathe, one of the claims was "cheaper." With all that superstructure, I was wondering--cheaper than what? Very interesting, though.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.