Hi, I know this is off Arch topic and more from an Engineering persepective, but does anyone know if the sole purpose of monorails is so that they can go round and round a track only, or can it be designed to have stop off areas and go downhill or does it require to much energy to come back up??? I was talking to a friend about a monorail construction idea that the monorails would still be up in the air on the track, but could it be designed to move off the original track and let's say, go down a inclined track to a ground station then back up onto the original track above. Stupid idea??? Or did someone already do this??
Monorails are so 1960's. They don't need to run in a loop, and they can go up and down modest grades, but the biggest problem with them is the very complicated switching mechanism to get them from one track to another, plus the cost of a whole new infrastructure (compared to conventional trains). As such, they're only good for very limited applications such as people movers at airports and theme parks, as opposed to use in a serious mass transit system.
There's really nothing a monorail can do that can't already be done much more efficiently with conventional trains running on two conventional steel rails, which are proven technology and don't require a whole new infrastructure.
they also suffer from possessing any form of standardization whatsoever. different transportation companies have their own track systems and rolling stock. i think the mag-lev concept may be destined to go the way of the monorail for the same reasons. maglev track is essentially a monorail but a thin plane instead of a beam.
monorails were supposed to cost less then normal trains by only having one rail, but suspending them up in the air ate up all the cost savings. the only place you see them anymore is at world fairs and epcot. now maglevs (see pic above) are supposed to cost more $$$ then a normal train, but save money by going so fast. if you've ever ridden that slow poke thing in downtown detroit, you know that monorails ain't fast - even transferring between terminals at an airport takes more time then walking.
If you want some cool transit infrastructure, then look at space elevators.
yeah but the slow poke thing in the d isn't a monorail, despite that it is elevated. it runs on the standard gauge (4'-8.5") track and could theoretically connect with a surface railroad, if it wasn't automated.
Chiba has an urban monorail. It's pretty sweet. the network is obviously smaller than the subways, but I believe they used it where they couldn't lay any more track @ or below grade. The views of the city were phenominal and it was cheaper than the subway.
there was a British new town proposal for North bucks, from the 1960s, called "Monorail City" that featured a ring of housing estates connected ONLY by a monorail system.. no roads
I still like the idea of maglevs frankly. They are in their infancy but the sky really is the limit with them. I don't think a TGV running on a dual rail could achieve super sonic speeds running on rails like that, but the maglevs can.
yeah but no land based vehicle will ever achieve supersonic speeds. who wants to hear a sonic boom every time a train goes by? imagine your windows being blown out by the reduction in air pressure from the supersonic train.
Thanks for the posts, just a thought....., over here in Houston, we have a Metro Rail that runs back and forth and I got to thinking how Houston could jazz up it's transit system......But sadly I started thinking how pathetic our downtown district is and wondered why anyone would care to have a Rail system downtown to begin with, when we hardly have anything worth seeing down here?? Downtown Houston definently needs a new makeover (i.e. shops, better parks, move the museum district downtown), now if only the oil tycoons could think more imaginatively and less "wipe my ass with my money" concept, then Houston could be 4rth largest city in the US and a great place to visit.
"I always wonder why the future keeps endng up looking like a comic book from the 1930's."
because there's been an incredible lack of imagination and vision in recent years regarding experimentation and development of our transportation systems. most answers to today's most pressing questions of transportation want to look backward rather forward.
Oct 16, 07 12:15 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Monorail Construction
Hi, I know this is off Arch topic and more from an Engineering persepective, but does anyone know if the sole purpose of monorails is so that they can go round and round a track only, or can it be designed to have stop off areas and go downhill or does it require to much energy to come back up??? I was talking to a friend about a monorail construction idea that the monorails would still be up in the air on the track, but could it be designed to move off the original track and let's say, go down a inclined track to a ground station then back up onto the original track above. Stupid idea??? Or did someone already do this??
I guess kinda like a roller coaster, but do monorails have that much flexibility to manuever??
Monorails are so 1960's. They don't need to run in a loop, and they can go up and down modest grades, but the biggest problem with them is the very complicated switching mechanism to get them from one track to another, plus the cost of a whole new infrastructure (compared to conventional trains). As such, they're only good for very limited applications such as people movers at airports and theme parks, as opposed to use in a serious mass transit system.
There's really nothing a monorail can do that can't already be done much more efficiently with conventional trains running on two conventional steel rails, which are proven technology and don't require a whole new infrastructure.
look at traction systems
yes, nothing like a concrete switch track. but they do look pretty sweet though, don't they?
they also suffer from possessing any form of standardization whatsoever. different transportation companies have their own track systems and rolling stock. i think the mag-lev concept may be destined to go the way of the monorail for the same reasons. maglev track is essentially a monorail but a thin plane instead of a beam.
Agreed... And new TGV trains using conventional rails are being tested at speeds that approach those promised by maglevs.
monorails were supposed to cost less then normal trains by only having one rail, but suspending them up in the air ate up all the cost savings. the only place you see them anymore is at world fairs and epcot. now maglevs (see pic above) are supposed to cost more $$$ then a normal train, but save money by going so fast. if you've ever ridden that slow poke thing in downtown detroit, you know that monorails ain't fast - even transferring between terminals at an airport takes more time then walking.
If you want some cool transit infrastructure, then look at space elevators.
yeah but the slow poke thing in the d isn't a monorail, despite that it is elevated. it runs on the standard gauge (4'-8.5") track and could theoretically connect with a surface railroad, if it wasn't automated.
man i'm a dork
tk- is that the nanotube technology version?
seattle's monorail is a joke, as is the not quite yet finished SLUT. i miss me some quality european light rail/trams.
Chiba has an urban monorail. It's pretty sweet. the network is obviously smaller than the subways, but I believe they used it where they couldn't lay any more track @ or below grade. The views of the city were phenominal and it was cheaper than the subway.
there was a British new town proposal for North bucks, from the 1960s, called "Monorail City" that featured a ring of housing estates connected ONLY by a monorail system.. no roads
A town with money is like a mule with a spinning wheel.
In LA that image of the Chiba monorail sliding over the street would be used to KO the approach.
Where is Chiba?
that image looks like the future...
that image looks like the future...
Chiba.. Japanese city near Tokyo
agh
I always wonder why the future keeps endng up looking like a comic book from the 1930's.
I still like the idea of maglevs frankly. They are in their infancy but the sky really is the limit with them. I don't think a TGV running on a dual rail could achieve super sonic speeds running on rails like that, but the maglevs can.
yeah but no land based vehicle will ever achieve supersonic speeds. who wants to hear a sonic boom every time a train goes by? imagine your windows being blown out by the reduction in air pressure from the supersonic train.
Thanks for the posts, just a thought....., over here in Houston, we have a Metro Rail that runs back and forth and I got to thinking how Houston could jazz up it's transit system......But sadly I started thinking how pathetic our downtown district is and wondered why anyone would care to have a Rail system downtown to begin with, when we hardly have anything worth seeing down here?? Downtown Houston definently needs a new makeover (i.e. shops, better parks, move the museum district downtown), now if only the oil tycoons could think more imaginatively and less "wipe my ass with my money" concept, then Houston could be 4rth largest city in the US and a great place to visit.
"I always wonder why the future keeps endng up looking like a comic book from the 1930's."
because there's been an incredible lack of imagination and vision in recent years regarding experimentation and development of our transportation systems. most answers to today's most pressing questions of transportation want to look backward rather forward.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.