Monorail...monorail...monorail...mo norail...

File: 362033461_4a2b699dee_z[1].jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

I hate that monorails have become a meme from a shitty Simpsons episode that aired over 20 fucking years ago.

They're actually a pretty efficient method of mass transit in the right circumstances.

>>1007337
That pic looks more like a nom-a-rail... maybe someone with some skill can caption it?

>>1007347
Is there any practical reason for putting it under the rail instead of putting the rail lower and putting the train above the rail? I'm curious.

>>1007352
There are few practical reasons for any type of monorail.

>>1007355
This. Monorails look neat and all, but their track is super-expensive, plus it's a huge pain-in-the-ass if you want to expand the route by adding a new switch for it. They are good for theme parks where the route just needs to go in a circle and is unlikely to ever be expanded, but not good for ever-changing cityscapes.

File: Tagesfahrt_Neue_Schwebebahn01.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

suspended monorail, best monorail

>>1007359
>their track is super-expensive

That's just wrong. Building monorail tracks is actually cheaper than elevated metro tracks (let alone subways) and they could easily carries more than 30k pphpd

Monorail has its drawbacks but being expensive isn't one of it

>>1007337
Looks like the ones in São Paulo

File: MonorailPeach2011-oct-22.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

I need the concrete, real reasons why Monorails are a bad form of mass transportation please.
I've laughed at this meme for literal years but I don't know the reason.

>>1007529

They're not bad, they're just ultraspecialist. For a simple, self contained, entirely elevated system, they're easily the best option.

But a simple, self contained, entirely elevated system is very rarely what's required.

>>1007501
It could be. There are two major monorail train makers today: Bombardier (Canada) and Hitachi (Japan). I know the one in Sao Paulo is built by Bombardier, so the OP might be built by them, too.

File: TT-AA022_MONORA_G_20110519171536.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1007537
This. A good place for an elevated monorail to flourish is in a populated area situated on uneven terrain, which is why the system in Chongqing is so successful (it's the world's busiest and largest).

I hear those things us dead brain slobs

>>1007585
>I know the one in Sao Paulo is built by Bombardier

Kek

>>1007347
>implying monorails aren't a meme

File: langzeitbelichtung-nacht-lzb-nrw-night-wuppertal-schwebebahn-1920.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Technically subways got the same advantages/disadvantages. Monorails are just cheaper to build and maintain. And got that futuristic vibe. But subways are often heavily subsidized by government. That's why subways are more common.

>>1007663
you could also add that subways do not require to either expropiate lots of buildings to place the monorails or put them right above an avenue wich completly fucks the avenue's view and lowers the land value. also, subways are not so enviromentally weak, so they are less like to erode, rust and stuff due to weather.

>>1007347
Seeing how modern Simpsons is entirely out of ideas, they could remake that episode with Springfield getting one of those meme streetcar circulators.

File: hdr-wuppertal-technik-verkehr-schwebebahn-schwebebahn-1-1920.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1007690
Digging a subway tunnel takes decades and might cut your building from any traffic. Monorail is quickly build. Building a subway with subsidies is also a spoiled gift. Everything will seem fine for maybe 3 decades. But then you your tunnels will need a mayor overhaul. It's expensive and your transport company will go bankrupt or your city will have to pay billions. Service be affected for years as well. Overground structures are more easy to access and can be continuously maintained.

The Walt Disney World Monorail is the busiest monorail system in North America, transporting ~150,000 passengers per day (~55M per year).

>>1007537
>simple, self contained, entirely elevated system is very rarely what's required.

Every single (decent) metro is a simple, self contained system.

London which was one of the few cases where various lines shared the same tracks is merging and changing lines so each line is self contained and can avoid traffic from other lines.

>>1008215
Many aren't simple (instead having branches) and many aren't self containednto start with even if they end up that way. But it's elevated conditions which most favour monorails.

And as for the London Underground, some of it is self contained but much of it isn't and there are no plans to make it so.

File: service_branch.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1008215
you forgot
>entirely elevated

as long as your building at grade or underground monorail adds nothing to what a regular rail-based subway would do, but instead switches are complex and expensive (you need switches every couple of stations to allow partial services in case of a breakdown, especially if your lines get longer; also there's switches to allow trains go from one line to another to access depots, since large subways have usually a few centralized depots and service branch lines between lines).

Also you'll likely be using proprietary technology, which adds expense that a standard off-the-shelf system does not. I'd also bet that maintenance is more expensive for monorails than regular rail, except, again, in the case of an elevated line, in which case the monorail is basically part of the structure, while a regular rail line sits on top of a structure.

That other anon hit the nail on the head. Monorails are ok if your system is:
>simple (no branches)
>self contained
>entirely or mostly elevated

>>1007481
That's not a monorail

File: mono_one_rail_rail.png (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1008449
>one rail
>not monorail
wtf is wrong with you

>>1008450
Thare's clearly two rails.
look at this pic of it >>1007884

>>1008215
> self contained
You forgot about running commuter and intercity services through metro/subway tracks.

The metro to mainline transfer can be really shitty, and you also waste money building more row that might not be needed if you dont allow this.

>>1008451
you're trolling, right?
>two rails
>one for each direction

dumbass.

>>1007481
maaaan i was in Wuppertal for like a month and didn't see the new cars

at least i took some pic while the older ones are still running, if somebody is up for that i might post some here

File: 54400-54999-wsw-oberbarmen-15.06.2014.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1008445
>switches are complex and expensive

This is a far spread myth. Monorail switching is quick and simple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUit-1qAhCg

>>1008532
>that
>quick and simple
>huge machinery that needs to move hundreds of kilos of steel
>takes around 15 seconds to switch, 10 times more than than a regular rail switch
I'll give you that it's conceptually simple, but it's execution is way more complex than a rail switch. The maintenance cost of those switches must be several times that of any regular rail switch.

File: FAW-points1.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1008532
>>1008589
>>1008445

Monorail switching might look more impressive. But the technology behind is basically the same as for double rail. An electric motor moving back and forth for switching. Actually these switch motors were first used for monorail and later used for double rail switching.

File: russell wilson unimpressed.png (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1008532
>quick and simple

>>1008736
I get that, but compare how much mass that monorail switch has to move, and how much mass a rail switch has to move. That means the motor will be bigger, consume more energy, need more maintenance, and so on.

In my city, both subways and trams have switches between each track every 2 or 3 stations. That way if there's a breakdown, there will never be more than 3 stations without service. With a monorail, this would require significant infrastructure: Extra supports for the heavy switching mechanism, space for a bit of track between each track, this in turn means the normal tracks need to be spaced apart in that section to leave space for the switch, so on, so on, so on.
I believe most monorails don't have any sort of switches like this along the line, only at branchings like to get to the depot, for this very reason.
The Wuppertal elevated monorail has no way for trains to change directions halfway along the line. If anything breaks down, the whole line will have to shut down. That's a definite disadvantage. Of course not enough to warrant it's closure since it's been in place for over a century, but shit like that is why monorails nowadays are impractical except in very specific situations.

File: 16894-10+24-unfall-hammerstein-05.08.2008.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1008823
Monorail switches are way shorter which is an valuable advantage in a urban environment. For any northern region energy consumption and maintenance is lower. At least for suspended monorail. It's better protected from harsh whether. Ordinary overground rail switches usually need to be heated during winter to prevent failure.

Accidents are less likely then for trams, in case a car is badly damaged the next car comes in slowly, is coupled and both go to depot.

File: tower18o.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1009115
I wonder how such an intersection would look like as a monorail, or even a full grand union.

>>1009341
BTFO

File: The_Lartigue_Monorail,_Listowel,_-_turntable_-_geograph.org.uk_-_331706.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1009341
in an early monorail system they used a turntable

>>1009515
a cute!

>>1009515
>monorail
>uses three rails
y tho

>>1009560
top rail carries the weight, lower two are for balancing the engine and wagons so they don´t tip over

>>1009341
It would be grade separated. Monorails generally don't have a problem with steep gradients.

>>1009583
So... trirail?

File: Switches Bitches.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1009692
>Osaka_switches

"Monorail" has previously been cynically defined as "something running on more than two rails".

File: ab18.gif (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1007347
>"Mono"rail

File: Monorail_gyroscopique_Brennan.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

this is a Monorail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83a4vZbyWlI

File: Seattle-Monorail_nb-pier-33+Red-Car.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

When I was a kid I used to love riding the Seattle monorail. I'd sit by the window in the 3rd floor food court at Westlake mall to watch the monorails go by.

>>1007529
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afbSA2-DESw

File: 18mjymjj8hx6fjpg.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1007337
GTFOOTW monorail.

>>1007359
>>1007500
The complicated nature of track switching in monorail systems is perhaps one of the largest reasons it isn't more prevalent.

>>1008589
Even worse when it's the type of monorail that runs over its rail as opposed to under, like the ones at Disney World. It's basically a giant pivoting steel and concrete beam that has to move to make the switch and I think it takes at least a minute to make the switch, as opposed to conventional railway with switches that change in a few seconds.

this is a fun monorail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhxVtUFZVzk

File: Wuppertal_Schwebebahn_14_Innen.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1009115
interior

>>1007347
>in the right circumstances
>in the right circumstances
>in the right circumstances
...

>>1008215
>Every single (decent) metro
>self contained
Please don't wreck it yourself.

>>1016457
In many cases you can build tram/light-rail instead. These are cheaper so monorails will only be used where space is rare and valuable. That's why most are found in Asia.

>>1008445
Sort of building off this. Monorails are also terrible for evacuating.

Lots of people like the sleek designs with concrete arches and pillars, but if there's a fire on-board you need walkways running parallel to the trains. Which also need to be handicap-accessible to some degree. And not interfere with the switches.

You can get around these issues if you're a large private company (like Disney), a historical remnant (like Wuppertal) or a government that doesn't care (like China or Brazil).

That said, Monorails are much better at grade climbing, are somewhat quieter, and don't obstruct sunlight as much as elevated trains. Los Angeles is the only US city that might use them, but they blew it.

File: 500DaeuguEvac.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1016479
>Monorails are also terrible for evacuating.
>but if there's a fire on-board

Monorail's got an amazing safety record. Because it's elevated accidents are just very unlikely.
Evacuation with escape slides and ladders works surprisingly well. Subway/underground is worse.

>>1007347
>>1007481
>>1008532
>>1009115
>>1016396
What happens if you get stuck on one of those? The track ones you could at least have an emergency path for mass transit stuff... but those suspended ones you'd need a lift to get people down.

File: 18999-00-22-23.01.1989-unfall.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1016684
look here
>>1016720
>>How do you evacuate when the thing catches on fire?
>In more then 100 years of operation it never did. It had been heavily bombed during WWII but no car did catch fire.
>In case of an accident there are several options.
>- the car moves to the next station by itself
>- the car is pushed to the next station
>- a car goes alongside, passengers change cars and are brought to the next station
>- evacuation with ladders
>- passengers are abseiled like this
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYZVwD3rHAY [Embed]

>>1007352
Hong Kong government claim it look prettier

>>1016684
Not on your life, my Hindu friend

>>1011456
wow, that would make for some amazing post-suicide cleanup!

>>1007500
This nigger gets it

>>1013356
I'd argue that the biggest reason why monorails never caught on outside of Japan as a mass transit option is that elevated mass transit of any sort simply fell out of vogue post-WWII due to bleeding heart NIMBY complaints about noise and shadows.

Light rail, though no cheaper to place due to land acquisition/right of way issues, DOES have the added perk that when a train isn't passing by, there isn't much to look at, which means it's that much less likely to draw the wrath of the local NIMBYs.

There's also the perk that while a monorail station can often cost upwards of 20-30 million since it has to be elevated too (and in the USA it needs to be ADA compliant), a light rail station is literally a concrete curb and a couple bus shelters.

Sure, the monorail is unhindered by traffic and can push passenger densities that are rivaled only by heavy rail subways, but that little detail always seems to be lost on transit planners.

File: EFLS_Hoiyuenroad.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Artist depiction of what the proposed monorail system in Hing Kong would look like with actual scenery

>>1017070
>Light rail, though no cheaper to place due to land acquisition/right of way issues
Bullshit. Building an elevated structure is invariably more expensive than some crappy ROW.

File: maxresdefault (6).jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1017201
For suburban routings, you're absolutely right.

However, for anything approaching urban densities, you're sadly mistaken. I used to hate monorails as well, but nowadays they seem more like what they always were: a less intrusive version of the old elevated.

Why is that relevant in 2016? Because the cost of building new subway lines has become so prohibitive that outside of kluges like building down highway medians, no western city that's not NYC or a national capital can actually afford to build new subway lines through their urban cores, which is especially bad given the surging populations in dense US and European cities.

A SAFEGE or Alweg system might not make sense as an alternative to a suburban or Dallas-density light rail system, but it could absolutely be just what the doctor ordered for a city like Baltimore, Boston, or Philadelphia where there's absolutely the need for another rapid transit-density line or three, but where land acquisition and tunneling costs mean building a new subway would be next to impossible.

>>1017201
LMAO. Come back after checking the land prices in Hong Kong. Building a monorail is definitely an order of magnitude cheaper than ROW in that case.

>>1010014
They just took out the food court to replace it with another shitty chain store.

>mfw I can still ride this any time I want

>>1018139
Exactly how much it cost for ROW in HK? When the tram company present their Kai Tak proposal and say it's 75% cheaper than monorail, they apparently did not take this into account

File: retarded.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1018139
>land prices
>ROW
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA How fucking dense are you? Since when do you have to tear down buildings to make a ROW? You build it on the fucking STREET, which means taking away ROAD SPACE which belongs to the CITY. So you don't have to buy ANY land at all. Land prices are completely irrelevant.

>>1017211
>Why is that relevant in 2016? Because the cost of building new subway lines has become so prohibitive
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I was never talking about subways. I was saying that a surface ROW is cheaper, I never implied any tunnels. Of course an elevated structure will always be cheaper than a tunnel. But a surface ROW only needs 2-3 car lanes to be replaced by the ROW, maybe a bit of concrete for physical separation, and that's all.

>>1017070
>I'd argue that the biggest reason why monorails never caught on outside of Japan as a mass transit option is that elevated mass transit of any sort simply fell out of vogue post-WWII due to bleeding heart NIMBY complaints about noise and shadows.
You do realize modern systems like the Vancouver SkyTrain, Miami Metrorail/mover and the Honolulu metro are almost entirely elevated, right? Even the DC metro is almost entirely elevated outside of the core.
Modern elevated rail systems are far less intrusive than traditional elevated systems like the one in Chicago and have been implemented in many areas.

>Sure, the monorail is unhindered by traffic and can push passenger densities that are rivaled only by heavy rail subways, but that little detail always seems to be lost on transit planners.
>Source: my ass
I don't know the specifics for the Japanese systems but the ALWEG-type systems are awful in terms of capacity. Most vehicles used on those systems have very low headroom which makes it impractical to have standies and it's impossible for passengers to cross between cars in most of them.

Monorails are shiny toys for city councils.

File: Werther_Bruecke.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Monorail costs about as much as light-rail and got the same capacity. But unlike light rail or bus it attracts tourists.

File: IMG20161103203036.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Inside the monorail shown in OP. I take this everyday.

File: IMG20161103203428.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1023920
Driver's compartment. This is the rear. The driver is in the forward compartment. This is in Malaysia btw. If you are in Malaysia, take a ride. It allows you interesting views of Kuala Lumpur. You can even see into pre war shops and apartment buildings.

>>1023920
looks comfy

>>1007692
Or hyberloob episode.

File: Springfield_Hyperloop.png (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1026376
Too late.

File: nosusrail.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

tfw your city will probably never have a suspension railway

>>1027312
>Tfw your city will probably never have a proper railway
>Tfw your city will probably never have a proper bus system
>Tfw your city will probably never have any public transit
Source: The monorail we will probably have is shit though.
OK we have all of the above.

>>1022063
Unlike generic monorail a historical trolley/streetcar/tram network attracts more tourist.

>>1023921
If you can cram yourself into a spot where you can see anything because that thing is 150% full almost all the time.

>>1022063
And unlike rail, it isn't as objectionable to local businesses and residents (depending on technology).

Grade level rail mixed with traffic is a nightmare with cars, trucks, pedestrians getting onto the tracks at inopportune times. Both surface and elevated rail if noisy as fuck. When Seattle put in light rail, any neighborhood with any political clout said 'Put it underground!' Expensive as hell. The only places it runs at grade or elevated are through industrial areas or where the colored folks live.

When Seattle was considering monorail, they did a study of the tourist attraction system we have from the worlds fair. They did a study of the monorail's impact on adjacent property values due to noise and found no negative effect. The rubber tire on concrete rail technology is no noisier than a passing electric trolley bus.

>>1011456
Blimptraiiiin.

>>1011456
hyperloop 1.0

>>1027419
>historical trolley/streetcar/tram network attracts more tourist

Caught in the wheels?

>>1032442
1. If you are that limited, have insufficient demand, want an elevated closed system, 100% sure it, the city and transit system won't be expanded/changed, have a tight geography, people with unmovable opinions and blah blah blah specifics, by all means build a monorail.

2. Go ahead and try that on tourists somewhere in a city under the above conditions with no history and existence of rail. No one is objecting every instance of monorail.

Please at least consider conventional AGTs for new systems.

>>1033280
Typical monorail, typical response?

>>1023920
What's with the seats, is everyone incontinent where you live?

>>1033331
The Hannover Stadtbahn also has those hard plastic seats. It's atrocious, especially since the trains have no suspension to speak of.

File: Monotrilho São Paulo 1.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Pros of having a monorail system

File: Monotrilho São Paulo (2).jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1035370

>>1007337
looks like pacman train eaeting the rail

>>1035370
Oh fuck. Any elevated rail would be good in this situation though.

>>1033331
Those middle seats doubles as covers for the bogies underneath.

>>1033368
Plastic seats are easier to clean and last longer. You don't need a cushion if you're expecting less than 15 minutes ride

Besides nothing is more disgusting than laying yo ass on a wet cushioned seat with skidmarks on it

>>1035370
>>1035374
Connecting nothing to nowhere

>>1035517
>Besides nothing is more disgusting than laying yo ass on a wet cushioned seat with skidmarks on it
This has never happened to me and my city is full of little children, people with mental and physical handicaps and idiots. The seats on the train have simple covering of synthetic fiber, I believe. They don't contract much dirt and they're easy to clean, not to mention much more comfortable for your bum.

>>1035548
You're wrong

File: IMG_8030.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1007337
>GTFO OP!!
I wouldn't want to ride in (mono-rails) they are infested with a STDs

>>1036517
Did the midwife dropped you when you were born?

>>1036517
STD?

>>1035517
>Plastic seats are easier to clean and last longer.
As a janitor I can confirm this.

File: 2002649161.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1016634

>>1017070
>NIMBY complaints about noise and shadows.

They did a study of Seattle's monorail and its effects on adjacent real estate values. No complaints. No negative impact.

>when a train isn't passing by,

Grade level, true. But nobody wanted grade level light rail in Seattle. So tunnels or elevated. Except in the colored people's neighborhoods, where the city just told them to shut the fuck up and live with it.

>>1038808
Monorail switch and depot real dope.
>>1041031
Butt fuck monorail in lieu of proper rail and bus.

>>1041031
>>1041120
Not that I have anything against this particular shuttle / people mover though. Niches are niches.

>>1036639
compare to metallic seats?

File: Screenshot_2017-01-14-15-02-46_com.chrome.beta_1484377390916.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1041132
Steel seats are quite slippery and uncomfortably cold to sit on

>>1040920
Couldn't they have built the thing with a 50cm larger margin? That wouldn't have been to difficult, would it?

>>1007337
dat eyelining

monorails are such a stupid thing. like it has no advantage over traditional rail other than looking futureistic.

>>1041298
>reading is hard

File: NOM.png (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1007349
gift from pol

>>1041317
>Comprehension is hard

>>1007337
I can't take monorails seriously because they look like caterpillars devouring a metal tube

File: Jrb_20081125_Chiba_Urban_Monorail_002.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>1041422
What do you say about suspended monorail?

File: 1280px-Chiba_Urban_Monorail_0_series_201206-01.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Isn't it sexy? So clean and modern.

>>1041426
>>1041428
Almost as good as Wuppertal

>>1041157
It was originally built so the cars could pass each other. But the architects for the Westlake Mall (built later) wanted to squeeze every square foot out of the available space. So they had the tracks moved closer together with the idea that one car could wait for the other to clear the tight spot.

Existing Seattle monorail is just a tourist attraction anyway.

>>1041428
wow

>>1045759
You'd have to be drunk off your ass to build a crazy railway system like that, so the fact that it was built in Ireland is fitting.

Also, that loco, and the replica diesel-hydraulic loco of it curently running, are extremely rare examples of locos with an odd-number wheel arrangement.

>>1041428
I came

It looks futuristic as fuck and I have a massive nerdboner for that kind of thing

>>1010012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4nForKnnNk

real life example

>>1007337
It's a Malaysian made train used in Kuala Lumpur