Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!

[canucklehead2]

Who's a fan? Who's ridden one? I am a fan and LOVE the Seattle ALWEG system. Still kinda bummed it hasn't been expanded despite several attempts and the fact that many cities have them around the world and they are workhorses in their application... Cough, cough, Disney___'s parks...

[Hatman]

I'm a fan! I've ridden one! I've driven one! I will gladly join any conversation about monorails.

Before the usual monorail vs light rail debate begins, I want to set the parameters of argument correctly; a monorail should not be seen as a competitor for light rails. 'Light' monorails - monorails designed for lower, LRT ridership levels - clearly do not make much sense (Such as the Moscow, Newark, or the old Sydney systems). The correct competitor is an elevated rail system.
If you're going to put your trains in the air, you'd need big huge bridges that block the light, are bulky and expensive, are noisy, and generally bad for creating a healthy urban environment:



So why not rearrange a few things? Bridges require beams. Beams are just like rails. Why not cut out a few steps and instead of having rails bolted onto bridge beams, just design a better train that can run directly on the beam?


This allows your structure to be less massive, less expensive, less noisy, and better for the urban environment around it.






It's a totally under-appreciated form of transportation. Here in the 'States we haven't built a BIG transit system in such a long time, so there's been no where for a monorail to play to its strengths. In China, Japan, India, and other places where BIG systems are being built, monorails are finally able to demonstrate their practicality beyond being a Disney ride.

[ssiguy]

Great idea for a thread! First let's get the definition straight. A monorail is exactly that........it runs on one single rail. This means that Vancouver's SkyTrain, Chicago's "L", and Jacksonville's and Detroit's downtown elevated lines are NOT monorail under any definition.

Monorails are finally starting to get the respect they deserve. Chongquin and Sao Paulo has recently introduced system both carrying over 500,000 passengers a day. Monorails are faster to build as most can be built off-site. They are fast, reliable, very safe, and when elevated they cast a much smaller shadow than traditional elevated LRT or Metro.

[Beedok]

I do like the look of those old elevated rail lines, so solid and industrial.

[canucklehead2]

I love elevated trains in general but the Seattle ALWEG system is my favourite because of its beautiful simplicity... Even with the largest beams of any monorail system to date you barely notice them when walking under it... And it can travel up to 70 MPH which is super-fast for a public transit system.

There were other proposals for systems in Vancouver and Los Angeles but neither were built which is a shame since both could have really made monorails a very mainstream North American technology instead of a kitcshy throwback relic...

[hughfb3]

Oh man...!!!! I am excited about this thread. I never realized how great monorails can be until our mayor of Los Angeles proposed a monorail through the sepulveda pass, linking the most heavily trafficked section in America... which by the way goes through a mountain range that divides the city in half.

The mayor's proposal to put Monorail over the sepulveda pass caught my attention. I never realized that there is a such thing as a "Heavy" Monorail. I've always thought of the small slower version like at Disney. After doing some research I found that there are Heavy rapid transit monorail systems in China and Japan that carry Heavy rail subway type capacity and are COMPLETELY grade separated. Hitachi so far is the most successful company at building Heavy Monorail Rapid Transit. Just looking at these pictures, had I not known, I would have thought this was an elevated Heavy rail rapid transit system and not monorail. Fooled me

The benefits I see are
1. quick construction (beams and pylons can be pre constructed off site; then shipped in for quick assembly, drastically cutting construction time
2. Completely grade separated
3. Same capacity as heavy rail (new technology allowing 8 car train sets)
4. 2/3rd the price of heavy subway
5. Quiet running
6. Smaller pylons would be less visually intrusive than elevated sections of our Expo and gold lines
7. Ability to go through hills and buildings easily
8. Can be completely driverless and computer automated (allowing ability to transfer Metro job to a train conductor merely there to validate payment of fare
9. Proven earthquake experience with Hitachi systems in Seismic prone Japan

Also, since giving up my car and now relying on transit, I see that when our light rail doesn't have signal priority, then it's super slow... since our heavy rail subway is underground, it's dark, dirty and cozy enough for people to sleep in stations and trains (light rail stations are sunlit and exposed=less sleep cozy). Buses have less people sleep camping out because entrance to bus is monitored by driver and payment is more likely... trains, not so much.
The best part about the expo line is the elevated sections between La Brea and Culver City which give beautiful expansive views across the city. All of these would be rectified with a heavy monorail system. The Chinese company; BYD, was mentioned with the mayor. from their website it looks like they only build medium size Monorail, when what we need is a large/heavy Monorail like what Hitachi builds. Not sure if Bombardier builds heavy monorail as well, but either way, I hope Heavy Monorail is included in the alternatives analysis













THIS IS THE SEPULVEDA PASS MOUNTAIN RANGE IIN L.A. AND THE 405 freeway aka, the Parking Lot

[ChargerCarl]

I really dislike the idea of introducing another separated mode of transit into LA.

[canucklehead2]

Really? I don't mind inter-modal transit networks as long as they are well integrated... Most cities don't do that well unfortunately... And with a city as picturesque as Los Angeles CAN be on clean air days it would be a shame not to have an aerial public transit system with lots of glass windows to watch everything from...

[skyscraper]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

I really dislike the idea of introducing another separated mode of transit into LA.

Yes, it's more of a Shelbyville idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM

[hughfb3]

So apparently BYD copied their monorail design off of the Bombardier line of Innovia 300 Monorail train sets... like blatant copy. This is good news for the consumer, bad news/or could be flattering news to Bombardier. The Bombardier Innovia line has large train sets that can have up to 8 cars in a train, so maybe BYD has the same capacity. For 8 car train sets, it would be 1,004 people per train. That's probably enough capacity for what we need in LA through the sepulveda pass

[canucklehead2]

Here's the best story I've found on the old ALWEG Monorail for LA for background purposes...

http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/LA1963.html

[mrnyc]

by far the quirkiest monorail around is at jungle jims grocery in cincinnati. it was repurposed from kings island amusement park:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/tvan...afari/7879441/

[mrnyc]

it looks like moscow built a six station monorail in the 'oughts and already they want to tear it down:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Monorail

[jg6544]

How about we plow up the damned 405 and sow salt in the rubble and replace it with a monorail?

[Cirrus]

OK I am really not interested in getting into a debate about this (monorail pro/con discussions are notorious for being head-against-brick-wall wastes of time), so I'm going to make this one reply and then probably never open this thread again.

But here's the deal with monorails: They can make sense if and only if your entire line is going to be fully (or effectively so) elevated regardless of mode.

The basic problem with monorails is that they have to be elevated all the time. You can put them low to the ground or in a subway, but you're essentially building a short el or a short underground el. The costs of doing that are significantly higher than they would be for normal surface rail or a normal subway. So if you want the flexibility to have ANY part of your system go at-grade or underground, then monorails are a bad choice. And because the reality is that the vast majority of rail lines anybody builds are some combination of at-grade/el/subway, monorail is rarely used.

But in those rare instances where the whole thing is going to be elevated anyway, then sure, monorail is cost competitive with traditional rail, and you can start to talk about things like aesthetic advantages.

This graphic illustrates the issue pretty well:

[Hatman]

Fair point, Monorails don't do well at grade or in tunnels. The counter to this argument is that monorails, using rubber wheels on concrete beams, can climb much steeper hills than steel-on-steel rail systems can, and so the need for tunnels can be more easily avoided. And since it is cheaper to not build any tunnel at all, Monorails still have an advantage! (Depending on the exact circumstances, of course)

[WrightCONCEPT]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Fair point, Monorails don't do well at grade or in tunnels. The counter to this argument is that monorails, using rubber wheels on concrete beams, can climb much steeper hills than steel-on-steel rail systems can, and so the need for tunnels can be more easily avoided. And since it is cheaper to not build any tunnel at all, Monorails still have an advantage! (Depending on the exact circumstances, of course)

That is nice for a steep hill, for a mountain pass with terrain shifts, a tunnel will be needed anyway as it will be easier to build to bore the tunnel then to pour the concrete to form the piers on top of a steep pass.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT

That is nice for a steep hill, for a mountain pass with terrain shifts, a tunnel will be needed anyway as it will be easier to build to bore the tunnel then to pour the concrete to form the piers on top of a steep pass.

You're assuming they will be pouring concrete to form the piers on site, they could pour them anywhere and truck them to the site. They also could use a different material for the piers, like steel instead of concrete. It is almost always cheaper to build an aerial structure than to build it underground in a tunnel.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Interesting comparison... I don't know that it fully works here. Aren't most train tunnels built nowadays with TBM and have circular tunnels and not square boxes? The stations are 4 sided boxes yes, but that's already going to have a large height with Mezzanine and other functions. In a circular tunnel they must fill the bottom portion with a few feet/meters for a traditional duo rail Metro to make it a flat surface (reference picture below). I would be curious to see how a single beam monorail would fit into a circular tunnel without the need to raise the bottom and flatten it out. Now that would be a more up to date comparison... Not that I would really want to see monorail in a tunnel though.

Notice the the circle isn't complete because of the raised surface. Would a monorail need to artificially raise the surface or would the circle be complete because the monorail is already raised. It all depends on the angle and width of the trains.


Also; regarding other parts of the comparison, a monorail can be built at ground level but it could never cross a street or anything else (full grade separation); but this is the same as any Heavy Metrorail that is powered by 3rd rail. I.E. NYC Subway, LA red/purple, London Tube. The above comparison says the ground level duo rail requires no major structures... yes, but if it's a light or heavy rail train and not streetcar, you still have to dig down a bit to make sure the rail is supported structurally and utilities most likely still need to be moved.

In the end though... a High capacity Monorail system still wins at being a superior form of elevated, grade separated transit for modern, sprawling, lower rise cities with open air aerial structures and ability to assemble BOTH the track beams and pillars offsite for quick, minimally disruptive, on site installation.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

OK I am really not interested in getting into a debate about this (monorail pro/con discussions are notorious for being head-against-brick-wall wastes of time), so I'm going to make this one reply and then probably never open this thread again.

I know you said you don't want to get into a debate, but debates are fun. They keep things alive, and they can bring new points to light fostering ingenuity and creativity. I love debating. Problem lately on online forums (and in our lives and government) is people don't know how to debate well without taking things personally. Let's debate well in this monorail forum and maybe there are times where people agree to disagree. we can simply acknowledge someone else's point of view and say "thank you, but AND I don't agree"