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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
NorthWest tomikawaTTWhat engineer with one functioning brain cell really WANTS to build a system that has to interface with private cars and their frequently inadequate operators? None! Transit operators have limited budgets, so having a light rail system in dedicated lanes is the limit to some agencies due to expenses. Grade separation costs more!
tomikawaTTWhat engineer with one functioning brain cell really WANTS to build a system that has to interface with private cars and their frequently inadequate operators?
None!
Transit operators have limited budgets, so having a light rail system in dedicated lanes is the limit to some agencies due to expenses. Grade separation costs more!
Thank you for your support
Overmod gardendance'm going to bet it's so uncommon as to never have happened. Your link doesn't give any examples of ground level monorails, it just says they can exist. Listowel and Ballybunion. Boynton Bicycle Railway (admittedly not 'quite' a canonical monorail but sertainly fits for purposes of this discussion!) Several examples of level crossings on the former -- they worked just like gates. No more complicated locking mechanisms required than on any movable rail bridge... ... I would tentatively point out that a maglev system can have ground-level crossings, just as a LIM system can -- nobody sane designs them because of the trash and sabotage problems, but they can be done. No reason why it can't be done at ground-level on separated ROW, just like all those conventional toy light-rail systems that need so much track structure and alignment (and still deliver that wonderful roll-out-the-barrel streetcar ride and noise) for many purposes.
gardendance'm going to bet it's so uncommon as to never have happened. Your link doesn't give any examples of ground level monorails, it just says they can exist.
Listowel and Ballybunion. Boynton Bicycle Railway (admittedly not 'quite' a canonical monorail but sertainly fits for purposes of this discussion!)
Several examples of level crossings on the former -- they worked just like gates. No more complicated locking mechanisms required than on any movable rail bridge...
...
I would tentatively point out that a maglev system can have ground-level crossings, just as a LIM system can -- nobody sane designs them because of the trash and sabotage problems, but they can be done. No reason why it can't be done at ground-level on separated ROW, just like all those conventional toy light-rail systems that need so much track structure and alignment (and still deliver that wonderful roll-out-the-barrel streetcar ride and noise) for many purposes.
Am 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? 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.
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
Was there not a monorail line created in Kuala Lumpur? Why no mention of it?
To quote the late Dr. Edward Morlok "Monorails are fundamentally unsound".
Tos speed of New York City subway cars is 45 or 48mph. Reached only between stations on express runs.
Also, the elevated light rail concept, returning to Dr. Harvey's original concept for the West Side Patent Elevaed Railway of 1868, has all the advantages of monoral wth none of the disadvantages.
See the 6th posting on this thread, page one.
Re the argument that monorails can't be built at ground level.
What engineer with one functioning brain cell really WANTS to build a system that has to interface with private cars and their frequently inadequate operators? Why the push toward grade separation in any place bigger than a bucoloc country hamlet on any line with more than five trains a day?
I may be totally wrong, but it seems to me that constructing a monorail for urban transportation, elevated clear of surface street traffic snarl, makes good sense. As for the restricted speed, I recently read that present-day New York subway trains go about their business at 30MPH - which seems to be fast enough for most purposes.
Chuck
daveklepperThe modern Alstom Citadis series of light rail cars, available in a wide variety of configurations and powering, is a real marvel of quiet and smooth operation, beating any bus (even a Mercedes intercity) and rivaling a deluxe private automobile. I am fairly certain some competitors, Bombadier and Stadler in particular, have also products that are excellent in these areas.
Most definitely, Dave!! Quiet, smooth, comfortable and reliable.
If you get up to Munich, you would find the MVG museum of interest and also, of course, the Deutsches Museum, one of the best technical and transportation museums anywhere.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Here's a good word on Monorails!
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth Like a genuine, bona fide Electrified, six-car monorail What'd I say?
Monorail What's it called? Monorail That's right! Monorail
Monorail Monorail Monorail
I hear those things are awfully loud It glides as softly as a cloud Is there a chance the track could bend? Not on your life, my Hindu friend
What about us brain-dead slobs? You'll be given cushy jobs Were you sent here by the Devil? No, good sir, I'm on the level
The ring came off my pudding can Take my pen knife, my good man I swear it's Springfield's only choice Throw up your hands and raise your voice
Monorail What's it called? Monorail Once again Monorail
But Main Street's still all cracked and broken Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken
Monorail! Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!
Mono, d'oh!
Songwriters Frank Mula;John Swartzwelder;Conan O'brian;Al Jean;Mike Reiss;John Vitti;Jeff Martin;George Meyer
| MetroLyrics
daveklepper But New Orleans did Canal Street diferently. They basically have modern technologhy in retro-bodies. And a modern track structure on Canal Street.
But New Orleans did Canal Street diferently. They basically have modern technologhy in retro-bodies. And a modern track structure on Canal Street.
Correct about Canal Street. When I was there a 6 - 8 block section of the track was being rebuilt with subgrade of crushed rock, some concrete ties, welded rail. and rubber pads between ties and rail.
I am not saying the operators and builders of the Memphis streetcar deliberately create noise. What I am saying is they did not apply the noise correcdtion measures introduced to the street and interurban railway industry with the PCC car in 1935 and aplied in almost all really modern, as opposed to retro, streetcars and light railcars today, including resilient wheels and pleanty of use of synthetic and durable rubber in the, now often air-bag springs, in the suspension system. The Memphis cars use good old established 1920's technology. I suspect the track structure is similar, with no artificial rubber between rails and concrete below and at the sides. It was wrong to sell reproductions of historic cars as a transit system. (Unless they are PCCs!) But New Orleans did Canal Street diferently. They basically have modern technologhy in retro-bodies. And a modern track structure on Canal Street. They have and are extending a transit system. They have their genuine moving museum pieces on the St. Charles Street line.
The modern Alstom Citadis series of light rail cars, available in a wide variety of configurations and powering, is a real marvel of quiet and smooth operation, beating any bus (even a Mercedes intercity) and rivaling a deluxe private automobile. I am fairly certain some competitors, Bombadier and Stadler in particular, have also produts that are excellent in these areas. I ride the Jerusalem light rail just about every chance I can, and it is a real pleasure. I also on occasionly enjoy a meal at one of the sidewalk restaurants on Jaffa Road with the light rail cars passing my table at arm's-length.
daveklepperHeritage lines deliberately simulate the noise and rattle of old streetcars. As far as I know Mempis has a Heritage line, not a modern line.
I would make a sarcastic comment here, but I'll refrain.
Memphis has claimed from the beginning that this was a transit system, and the amount spent on the cars is out of proportion to 'historic preservation' (and has resulted in some remarkably non-historical changes, such as the adoption of pantographs on the equipment). I can assure you that 'deliberate simulation' of noise, vibration, and harshness is NOT part of anything done here, and I find it somewhat hard to believe that any working transit authority that runs streetcars would voluntarily do so.
The issue is that the inherent quality of the trackwork and maintenance on the 'hospital extension' is not sugh as to provide a smooth quiet ride. I love the delightful noise, er, music as much as anyone (I went so far as to build a portable recording rig to tape the sounds of MP-54s on the line to Swarthmore in the early '70s) but I surely can't say the same is true of the people who live within earshot of the 'experience'.
I love the noise music.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Overmod daveklepperI don't know what you are talkiing about with roll-out-the-barrel streetcar ride and noise. Come to Memphis and ride the Cleveland extension.
daveklepperI don't know what you are talkiing about with roll-out-the-barrel streetcar ride and noise.
Come to Memphis and ride the Cleveland extension.
Heritage lines deliberately simulate the noise and rattle of old streetcars. As far as I know Mempis has a Heritage line, not a modern line.
Overmodjust like all those conventional toy light-rail systems that need so much track structure and alignment (and still deliver that wonderful roll-out-the-barrel streetcar ride and noise) for many purposes.
Try many streetcar liness in Europe for a quiet, smooth ride.
I don't know what you are talkiing about with roll-out-the-barrel streetcar ride and noise. I find modern light rail systems quieter than buses and extremely smooth riding. I cannot think of a single exception in the modern North American systems I experienced before moving to Jerusalem, and the smoothness and quiet of the Jerusalem system, except for a one in a hundred car requiring maintenance that may have unusual gear noise or a flat wheel, is excellent in every respect. (They are very good about pulling such a car off line when it happens.)
Switching a bit more complicated, of course, but even if using a flexible-curve style (where there are multiple support segments joined by a flexible set of contact surfaces) it's not difficult to set up.
You wouldn't build a hump yard, or complicated ladder tracks -- but that's already assumed.
Meanwhile, the Boynton system works fine with conventional points, although you need 'em top and bottom in some circumstances.
If you are going to dispute BNSF's underlying point -- that some monorail systems can be built and operated at lower cost than a new 'more conventional' alternative -- please address that rather than using straw-man-type arguments that only redundantly demonstrate traumatic equine demise.
Regarding the Wuppertal Suspension Railway, something just hit me. Who on earth thought that putting an elephant in a suspended railway passenger car was a good idea?
ontheBNSF That is actually not true a monorail can indeed be built at ground level, it is just not common to do so. http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/WhatIs.html
That is actually not true a monorail can indeed be built at ground level, it is just not common to do so.
http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/WhatIs.html
I'm going to bet it's so uncommon as to never have happened. Your link doesn't give any examples of ground level monorails, it just says they can exist.
Are there any ground level monorails? How much of their right of way is ground level, and how does it get along with the rest of our nation's highways?
I rode it in 1960 when there still was a tram line underneith, I think on the south bank of the river, long gone. It works fine. But nobody can call it a near-invisible structure! And compatibility with surface or subway operaton, forget it! It is a beautiful city, well worth visiting for its own sake.
The trams were the standard German three-truck articualted "Grossrumwagon" "DuWag" types. Fairly modern, and it was sad to see that they were abandoning the system, with a center-neutral-strip resevation line allready replaced by buses. Standard gauge too.
Wow! Thanks, Schlimm. What a marvel of engineering. Looks like a beautiful city, too.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.