While one might assume a San Francisco cable car is quiet, along with one of the coldest winters I experienced being one summer in San Francisco, among the noisiest rail rides I ever experienced were the cable cars I rode during that San Francisco summer, 1991. Was that an unusual year for corrugated track, or whatever contributed to the loud rail grinding type noises I heard?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
The beams themselves and the Pandroil Clips are sufficient to hold gauge as in any slab street track, common practice. The stainless steel gauge rods are primarily to assure accuracy in track installation, and there can be other methods without any tie of any kind except at the beam supports. This would be particularly true with reinforced concrete beams, rather than simple steel. But unlilke monorail, the reinforced concrete longintudinal beams need be no wider than needed for each to support a running rail and a guard rail, about a half-meter, or 19 inches..
And yes, this is an elevated light railway, so of course the cars have resilient wheels and air-suspension or equivalent, with overall design carefully controled for spaced resonances, including that of the beam and support structure ---which if reinforced concrete, should fairly rigid and damped. If it wasn't, it would develop sags between supports, which cannot be allowed to happen.
daveklepperMy elevated light rail concept uses continuous neoprene pads under both running and guard rails, with the usual Pandrol or other resilient clips to insure resilience. [That] doesn't mean ability to get out of gauge.
Yes, that ought to go a long way toward solving the problem. Using elastomer isolation in the wheels (if that technique has been reasonably perfected) is even better. As you note, NVH abatement in transit vehicles is a very advanced practice.
I had a somewhat different high-speed track system that likewise used elastomer under the rail and isolating the clamp systems. This provides primary damping. There does need to be some secondary 'damping' to get rid of the transferred energy, but that is not difficult to include in the longitudinal bearers in the guideway. The salient point here is that the natural frequency of the primary damping is not really suitable; compare how a vehicle would ride if all it had were some variant on composite chevron springs. (I always think of poor Mr. Nystrom from the Milwaukee, who thought ride had to get harder the more you optimized your suspension for higher speed...)
You will probably need something much more robust than periodic gauge rods in the track structure, however. I used a modified multiaxis truss for the gauge members, tying into the reinforcement in longitudinal precast/post-tensioned concrete structure. That does not increase the 'skyprint' in any meaningful way, but ensures that all the different forces trying to distort line and surface out of the axis of the continuous beam can be accommodated.
My elevated light rail concept uses continiuos neopren pads under both running and guard rails, with the usual Pandroil or other resilient clips to insure resilience doesn't mean ability to get out of gauge.
The noise of Charles Harvey's system was minimized by a 15mph top speed, lightweight cars, and minimum structure to radiate sound. Probably about the same as a San francisco cablecar.
They had regular handbrakes on the cars. They did not have to worry about traffic. While the line was cable operated without ties, it had one passing siding and no intermediate stations. Just two trains, something like a horizontal funicular.
daveklepperCable operation was quiet.
As long as it stayed sl -o-o-o-o-o-w. Get it up above a few mph and it will NOT be quiet. Likewise if any shock introduces oscillation. Now how do you stop the car without putting wear on the wheels?
I think ties -- or some other use of wood damping -- is in that system's 'future' regardless of what system powers it!
And the noise and vibration came with steam. Cable operation was quiet.
NorthWestThe original track was somewhat flimsy looking, I'm not surprised they added ties.
Nothing flimsy-looking about THAT track structure. But talk about roll-out-the-barrel noise! No damping! No compliance!
They added the ties for noise and shock reduction. And none too soon!
daveklepperThis 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.
The original track was somewhat flimsy looking, I'm not surprised they added ties.
Paul of CovingtonWith all that superstructure, I was wondering--cheaper than what?
Cheaper than grading a whole new 'permanent way' to the standards needed for high speed, or for the 'taking' of real estate in the path of the route!
One point made about the Railplane system is that it was made to go above existing railway lines (as in the case of the test section), so the amount of actual intrusive footprint would be miminized (much as the Schwebebahn is by being over the 'non-buildable area' of the riverbed most of the way).
No question that esthetic standards and concerns were a bit different then!
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
I just googled the George Bennie Railplane! Holy you-know-what is all I can say.
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.
Ladder track! Interesting idea!
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
Some of it is over a street...
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.
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?
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
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/)
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.