gardendance I now have to think what elevated railways use for their trackbed. I can't think of any off the top of my head that have ballast anymore, but I think some of the ones in Philadelphia did once upon a time.
I now have to think what elevated railways use for their trackbed. I can't think of any off the top of my head that have ballast anymore, but I think some of the ones in Philadelphia did once upon a time.
The Midway L (Orange Line) is on ballasted track for much of its route, even on the elevated sections.
BaltACD While we view terra fima as being stable, from a heavy duty construction vantage point it is anything but stable, at least until you get down and anchored to bedrock - however far down beneath the surface that may be.
While we view terra fima as being stable, from a heavy duty construction vantage point it is anything but stable, at least until you get down and anchored to bedrock - however far down beneath the surface that may be.
In many parts of the country, even the bedrock isn't stable, especially when crossing a fault line.
On a similar vein, I've wondered what was involved in resurfacing a maglev line.
The beam is concrete, and I suspect that it would have similar surface issues with wear as highways, both using rubber tires.
Actually Amtrak is on a campaign to replace open deck bridges ( cross ties on support beams ) to a ballast deck bridge. You will note most conversions have a higher MAS. Of course some bridges such a portal are open deck but the replacement(s) are planned to be ballasted.
Thanks for clearing up my ambiguous interpretation. I know what a tamper is, that one word has saved me needing 999 more from you, so I don't need a picture.
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
gardendance blue streak 1, when you say "RR sufacing machine" do you mean "rail grinder"? I too wonder what monorails, hanging or overrunning, steel or concrete, use to keep the rail smooth.
blue streak 1, when you say "RR sufacing machine" do you mean "rail grinder"? I too wonder what monorails, hanging or overrunning, steel or concrete, use to keep the rail smooth.
I bet 54light15 and blue streak 1 were talking about the railhead, not the trackbed, surface.
I doubt most monorail systems will anchor their piers to bedrock and as such, the ground is subject to various forms of movment; thus changing the alignment of the piers with their neighbors and affecting the ride characteristics of the line.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
54light15 I finally got to ride a monorail. It rode like a bus on a rough road! I thought it would glide "as softly as a cloud" as Lyle Lanley said. But no.
I finally got to ride a monorail. It rode like a bus on a rough road! I thought it would glide "as softly as a cloud" as Lyle Lanley said. But no.
I was so, so disappointed when I rode the Disney monorail in Florida in 1986. After seeing the system at Anaheim on the Disney TV show, "The Wonderful World of Color" (on our black and white TV set, oh the irony) and being so fascinated by the way of the future, I finally got to ride a monorail. It rode like a bus on a rough road! I thought it would glide "as softly as a cloud" as Lyle Lanley said. But no.
northamericanexpress One of the main reasons that monorail technology has not found widespread appeal in the US is that many individuals still view it as appropriate for amusement parks, zoos and in some cases airports (Newark comes to mind). Unfortunately, we don't have visionaries like the late Walt Disney (firmly believed that monorails were the wave of the future) to guide us at the moment.
One of the main reasons that monorail technology has not found widespread appeal in the US is that many individuals still view it as appropriate for amusement parks, zoos and in some cases airports (Newark comes to mind). Unfortunately, we don't have visionaries like the late Walt Disney (firmly believed that monorails were the wave of the future) to guide us at the moment.
Disney may have wanted us to think it was the wave of the future, but by making the monorail such an ubiquitous part of the theme park, he only reenforced the stereotype that monorails are for amusement only. He probably caused more damage to his own cause than anything else.
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
Have fun with your trains
As it turns out, the Maryland Rail Heritage Library at the baltimore Streetcar Museum recently was bequeathed a LARGE estate that included a LOT of materials on monorails. To be blunt, the deceased was a possible model for the "monorail salesman" in the notorious Simpsons episode, "Marge Versus the Monorail."Monorails are an idea that sound good on paper but fail in execution. Costs (construction and operational) are usually far higher than estimated; the power-to-weight ratio doesn't work; and too often, by the time a proposed system can be built the traffic patterns that instigated its construction (suburb to downtown, etc.) have changed, with an inflexible system turned into an albatross. One very unusual attempt to hold down costs which was actually installed in several countries--the Aeromovel, using atmospheric compression propulsion rather than electric motors--has not expanded beyond the few test systems in Brazil, Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, and elsewhere.I can name at least one major transit monorail project that has been abandoned and dismantled: Sydney, Australia's.
It's also a capacity issue: Monorail trains like Disney's Alweg systems are relatively small and carry a fraction of the number of passengers that conventional subway and elevated systems can handle.
One of the main reasons that monorail technology has not found widespread appeal in the US is that many individuals still view it as appropriate for amusement parks, zoos and in some cases airports (Newark comes to mind). Unfortunately, we don't have visionaries like the late Walt Disney (firmly believed that monorails were the wave of the future) to guide us at the moment. However, if one had the opportunity to travel abroad to either Brazil, Europe, or even Asia, monorails are either already in operation, have been in operation for several decades, or currently being constructed not as stand-alone units, but as part of a larger munincipal or regional transit-oriented system. For further information please check out the Monorail Society website (http://www.monorails.org).
Despite my positng some negative comments, I feel certain that more monorails will be built, but only when their one advantage outways their major disadvantage, lack of flexibility. The market place is the final judge. For urban transit, the ordinary bus is the clear winner, with more routes and more passsengers handled than any other mode. But light rail, ordinary streetcar, trolleybus, guided bus and guided trolleybus, heavy rapid transit, commuter rail, arial cable tramways (Haifa and Grenoble), funiculars, underground subway funicular (Haifa the only one), combination light rail and funicular (Triest), ferry boats, elevators (Barcelona, Lisbon) all have a place, and so does monorail.
Give us deaths per passenger mile, please, for a better comparison. There are few suspended monorails.
If I'm reading your references correctly, there has been, TO DATE, a grand total of only FOUR deaths associated with suspended monorails.......EVER ! Can you cite any OTHER mass transportation means with so horrible a record? The other issues you list can be overcome, I'm sure, with materials and methods available today, including the switching problem!
Dragoman cfphoto Paul Milenkovic The idea behind monorail-as-elevated-transit is that a more slender, visually appealing, quieter, and (this is a stretch) lower cost concrete beam substitutes for the clunky El. Some years ago I happened to be in Kitakyushu in Japan while a monorail system was being built. The station at the end of the line filled the entire street from building to building, just like the old Dover Street station on the MBTA Orange Line. While it may be that a monorail has less visual impact than a 19th century elevated railroad, the stations are likely to be just as blighting as an elevated railroad. BART trains in the San Francisco Bay Area run on long stretches of "modern" elevated structures. Unfortunately, significant noise is generated because the trains run at fairly high speed. I would not be surprised if a monorail running at the same speed didn't make a comparable amount of noise, primarily rubber tires agains the concrete guide beams. There is no free lunch. Be surprised, my friend. There may be no free lunch, but there is also no comparison between the noise level and footprint of BART versus an Alweg-type monorail, such as the system used at Disneyland in Anaheim. (Well, one could make a comparison: truck-tractor rig versus Prius.) I regularly have business near an elevated BART section. On the ground at some 40-50 feet away from the elevated structure (about 20-feet high), it is impossible to have a cellphone conversation when a train is passing – not at top speed, but at reduced speed approaching a nearby station. By contrast, I have stood directly under a Disney Alweg monorail “track”, about 15-feet high, and not noticed a monorail’s near-silent approach until it had nearly passed. The BART structure is at least 5 times as massive, held up by pylons that take up nearly 5 times as much space, as the monorail “track” structure.
cfphoto Paul Milenkovic The idea behind monorail-as-elevated-transit is that a more slender, visually appealing, quieter, and (this is a stretch) lower cost concrete beam substitutes for the clunky El. Some years ago I happened to be in Kitakyushu in Japan while a monorail system was being built. The station at the end of the line filled the entire street from building to building, just like the old Dover Street station on the MBTA Orange Line. While it may be that a monorail has less visual impact than a 19th century elevated railroad, the stations are likely to be just as blighting as an elevated railroad. BART trains in the San Francisco Bay Area run on long stretches of "modern" elevated structures. Unfortunately, significant noise is generated because the trains run at fairly high speed. I would not be surprised if a monorail running at the same speed didn't make a comparable amount of noise, primarily rubber tires agains the concrete guide beams. There is no free lunch.
Paul Milenkovic The idea behind monorail-as-elevated-transit is that a more slender, visually appealing, quieter, and (this is a stretch) lower cost concrete beam substitutes for the clunky El.
Some years ago I happened to be in Kitakyushu in Japan while a monorail system was being built. The station at the end of the line filled the entire street from building to building, just like the old Dover Street station on the MBTA Orange Line. While it may be that a monorail has less visual impact than a 19th century elevated railroad, the stations are likely to be just as blighting as an elevated railroad.
BART trains in the San Francisco Bay Area run on long stretches of "modern" elevated structures. Unfortunately, significant noise is generated because the trains run at fairly high speed. I would not be surprised if a monorail running at the same speed didn't make a comparable amount of noise, primarily rubber tires agains the concrete guide beams.
There is no free lunch.
With respect to the comment about monorails having a more slender, visually appealing structure, that's only true if you don't have emergency/maintenance walkways on the structure. It's one thing for a small system like the Disneyland monorail to dispense with walkways and to handle maintenance and evacuation like you would on a roller coaster ride, but it's neither practical nor safe for a larger transit system. You could build nearly as slender, visually appealing a structure for a conventional two rail system if you didn't have walkways.
The Seattle Monorail Project was a proposed five-line monorail system to be constructed inSeattle, Washington as an extension of the existing Seattle Center Monorail. The 14-mile (23 km), 17 station Green Line running from Ballard to West Seattle via Seattle Center would have been the first of the five lines to be built.[1]
From 1997 to 2005 the monorail project was a highly contentious political issue in the Seattle area. In November 2005, following the fifth voter initiative on the monorail in eight years, the monorail authority agreed to dissolve itself[2] after having spent $124.7 million in taxpayer funds without beginning any monorail construction.
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 had 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 effective June 30, 2006 (three years after it was first implemented) and began liquidating properties already purchased for the Green Line.[16]
The Seattle Monorail Authority was formally dissolved on January 17, 2008, after liquidating all of its assets, repaying its debts, and transferring its remaining $425,963.07 to the King County Metro system. The monorail project ultimately cost Seattle taxpayers $124.7 million.[17]
too bad bardt does not implement my ideas for railroad noise control as discussed in march=april 2004 Noise Control Engineering (magazine) peer-reviewed paper:
Technical Note: Additional thoughts on railway noise
David Lloyd Klepper (a)
(Received 2001 December 10; revised 2002 June 12; accepted 2004 February 10)
Primary subject classification: 52.4
1.INTRODUCTION
This paper is intended as a significant addition to the
Hemsworth–Hubner paper in the 2001 July August issue and
discusses certain aspects of railway noise control, including
one new idea, that were not discussed in that very valuable
and important paper.
1
It is not intended to complete the picture,
but should provide a basis for an ongoing discussion in this
journal that can equal the attention that has been given to road
and aircraft noise control. The reasons why such continuing
discussion is necessary were presented in the last paragraph of
this reference, where it is noted that it will “..support the EU
policy to transfer traffic from road to rail without adversely
affecting the noise environment....” Europe is not the only
place with this transfer is being effected. The former Governor
of California announced the opening of the “last new highway
to be built in California” with future funds directed to public
and rail freight transportation.
2
State funds contributed to the
construction of the Alemeda Corridor to relieve congestion
for rail freight at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,
3
and the State of Virginia is working with CXS Corporation to
increase track capacity between Washington and Richmond.
4
More such cooperative ventures are expected, and expansion
of rail commuter, metro, and light rail now has a thirtyyear history and continues unabated. In Israel, the Ayolon
connector and four Tel Aviv railway stations, three constructed
in the last six years, have dramatically increased commuter rail
service, and now Ashkalon port congestion has been relieved
by use of containers on flatcar trains to many transfer points.
This last concept is important because a rule of thumb in North
America has been that freight traveling less than 300 miles is
carried more economically by truck.
5
2.NOISE CONTROL BY VEHICLE SELECTION
Possibly an unstated assumption in the Hemsworth–Huber
paper is that the freight trains considered were all electrically
powered. It has been widely reported that for diesel freight
trains, the locomotive can be the major noise source. The author
has been an active participant in the railroad scene for wellover half a century, working as a student engineer for ElectroMotive in La Grange the summer of 1952 and then as a diesel
locomotive test engineer under Ernie Bloss, Superintendent
of Diesel Locomotives, Railcars, and Automotive Equipment
(buses, trucks, and railway maintenance of way equipment)
of the Boston and Main Transportation Company while
preparing his SB thesis on diesel locomotive load regulator
controls.
6
While most involved professionally in architectural
acoustics, my participation in railway activities permitted my
subjective evaluation of the reduction in noise levels generally
experienced when diesel power replaced steam, and then the
increase in levels, often to where they were, as supercharged
diesels supplanted normally aspirated diesels, as dynamic
brakes on mountain railroads required high powered fans
for cooling dissipative grid resistors, and as horsepower and
tractive effort of diesel units climbed to new levels.
7
Electric
locomotives can be designed to be far quieter, with energy
conserving regenerative braking replacing dynamic, and with
all cooling fans mounted reasonably low on the car body to
allow lower-height noise barriers to be effective.
8
Possibly
increased concern with air quality, as well as noise control,
and energy efficiency will spur more electrification of North
American railways, and the designers of the new locomotives
should keep noise control in the picture.
3.BARRIERS PIVOTING TO MAINTENANCE
WALKWAYS
In the first paragraph of the first reference, it is stated that
noise barriers present a hazard to track workers, adversely
affect mechanized track maintenance, and present a permanent
visual intrusion....
Possibly the new idea shown in Fig. 1
can present an answer to the first two problems in many cases,
and keeping the noise sources in the vehicle as low as possible
can provide the answer to the third. Figure 1 was prepared for
mitigation of one of New York Cityʼs worst noise problems,
and applies directly to many “subways on elevated structures”
in that city, primarily The Bronx.
9
The need for three tracks on these structures is less great
than when the structures were built, and the weight savings
possible by eliminating the center track, by using single track
bi-directional operation during heavy maintenance periods, and
by using skip-stop express operation during rush hours instead
of separate one-way local and express services, which in any
case are provided on a small fraction of the elevated subway
lines.
It can be shown that the noise reduction provided by barriers
on both sides of a rail car where the noise sources are under
the car is:
NR = 10logh- 10log(g+ αh), where
h= height of the railcar or locomotive above ground or
structure level
g= width of the gap between the side of the car and the
barrier
α= absorption coefficient of the side of the barrier facing
the railcar or locomotive.
a)
Other assumptions are that the barrier height is ten or more
times the width of the gap between the barrier and the railcar
or locomotive, and that the barrier does not extend more
than twice the gap width above the floor of the car, both
reasonable assumptions.
10, 11
A third assumption, that vibration
transmission or other flanking paths are minor may or may not
apply in particular situations. If a barrier is located only on
one side of the track, neglecting sound passing over the railcar
or locomotive roof, the noise reduction can be simplified in
most cases to:
NR= 10logh- 10logg- 3(1 - α).
Although Fig. 1 applies to New York City elevated
structures, it can be adapted to existing structures in Chicago
and perhaps Philadelphia, and the general concept is applicable
to new elevated and surface lines. I am confident that such
firms as Wenger, Overly, Industrial Acoustics, and Trux can
engineer walkable surfaces with efficient sound absorption and
durable longitudinal hinges to make the concept practical for
many situations. Ten dB Noise Reduction should be realized
in many cases.
Note that the rigid track structures, ties or sleepers imbedded
in concrete or rails themselves imbedded in concrete (“slab
track”) is not recommended where noise control is critical.
Even where resilient surrounds of rails and ties and clips
are used, the slabs tend to radiate forward and to the rear of
the passing train. This need not be a problem in subways or
underground Metros, but can compromise noise reduction
outdoors.
Continuously welded rail held by Pandroil clips
on resilient tie plates on wood ties on stone
ballast confined by concrete invert with station
platform heights adjusted
Girders formerly supporting center track removed
Sound barriers with hard perforated facing over damped steel
Pivoted at bottom to form walkway when maintenance is
required with handrail and supports pivoting into position
Fig. 1— Noise control modifications for New York Cityʼs “City Built” elevated structures.
4.CONCLUSIONS
Adding to the important wheel–track interface noise
mitigation measures suggested in the first reference, the author
has suggested noise abatement by the design of the railcars
and locomotives themselves and by choice of motive power,
and then suggested one possible innovative approach to barrier
design. The author hopes for an ongoing discussion that can
provide new noise control ideas for a very real second railway
age.
5.REFERENCES
B. Hemsworth and P. Hubner, “European cooperation on railway noise,”
Noise Control Eng. J. 49,185-187 (2001).
Personal communication from the transportation consultant, J. William
Vigrass, Hill International, Inc., Marlton, NJ, U. S. A., July 2001.
M. W. Hemphill, “Architects of the new age,” Trains 61:1, 45 (Jan.
2001).
D. Phillips, “Canʼt live with ʻem, canʼt live without ʻem,” Trains 60:6, 12,
(June 2000).
M. W. Hemphill, op. cit. 44.
D. L. Klepper, SB Thesis, M. I. T. E. E., Diesel Locomotive Load Regulator
Controls, 1953.
President of the Electric Railroadersʼ Association, Inc. for several terms,
member 1947 on, also active in Branford Electric Railways Association,
Inc., and Light Railway Transport Association. Sound system design work
for Pullman, Long Island Rail Road, and Port Authority Trans Hudson.
Tour leader in the U. S. A., Canada, and Great Britain to railway shops
and operations.
The concept has been applied in part to diesels for other reasons. D.
Lustig, “Phoenix-like tunnel motors just keep on working,” Trains, 61:12,
26 (2001).
“City-Built” structures meeting the design shown in Fig. 1 include:
Brooklynʼs Mcdonald and New Utrecht Avenues, (“F”, “D”), Fulton Street
(“J”), Myrtle Avenue (“M”), Livonia Avenue (“3”); Queensʼ Liberty Avenue
(“A”), Jamaica Avenue (“J”), Roosevelt Avenue (“7”, but possibly this is
an exception to non-essentiallity of the center track), and the Astoria Line
(“N”); and The Bronxʼs Broadway (“1”), Southern Boulevard (“2, 5”),
Westchester Avenue (“2, 5” in one segment, “6” further north), White Plains
Avenue (“2, 5”), and Jerome Avenue (“4”). In a few cases the structures
were built without the center track but always with the necessary structural
strength to add one in the future. These would be logical candidates for
test installations. Also the design can be modified for the original 1904
“Manhattenville Viaduct,” on Broadway (“1”) each side of the 125th Street
Station, which has supports in the roadway. Numbers in quotes refer to
subway route numbers.
10
L. L. Beranek, Noise Reduction(McGraw Hill, New York, 1960), Chapter
25.
11
C. M. Harris, Handbook of Noise Control(McGraw Hill, New York, 1979),
Chapter 33.
6.POSTSCRIPT
The readerʼs attention is drawn to the paper by Anders
Nordborg, “Wheel/rail noise generation due to nonlinear
effects and parametric excitation,” Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 111-4, April 2002, p.1772-1781. This
paper modifies previously held views and suggests that
continually supporting rails instead of periodically supporting
them as with conventional wood or concrete ties can in many
instances reduce noise, wear, and corrugation. This suggests
possibilities for modifying traditional technology that dates
to the mid-19
th
Century. I hope that readers will join me in
exploring such possibilities.
Paul MilenkovicThe idea behind monorail-as-elevated-transit is that a more slender, visually appealing, quieter, and (this is a stretch) lower cost concrete beam substitutes for the clunky El.
The raised feature, also known as a suspended or hanging monorail, off the top of my head and with my friend google:
must have higher pylons than supported mono, or conventional, rail in order still to get "NO interference with or from other traffic"
and when other traffic still gives it interference, has greater death and injury risk since the collisions will be with the monorail trains, not the structure.
http://www.craneaccidents.com/2008/08/report/wuppertal-suspension-railway-resumes-service-after-accident/
"The mobile crane on the back of a truck sliced open the bottom of a railway car"
has greater danger that a derailment will result in the train plummeting to the ground
http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Wuprtal.html
"In April of 1999, a derailment of a morning commuter train caused four deaths, the only fatal mass transit monorail accident in the 20th century."
still should have a floor, at least at stations
As I recall, monorails can also be of the suspended design. The suspended rail is atop a series of pylons, and dual rails can be set in the dead middle of divided streets and highways, thus taking NO extra space. The pylon bases aren't very wide and can be separated by 100 or more feet, and can be raised to be routed OVER buildings, parks and other spaces, disturbing no one. The rail can be covered by a snow/ice shield, preventing bad weather from stopping traffic. This raised feature also means NO interference with or from other traffic.Why not use this type of monorail?
Here is the discussion about monorails from last February:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/742/t/227255.aspx
_____________
"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.