On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:02:31 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:

John Rowland wrote:
alex_t wrote:
There's also a nice picture of the MonoMetro as it passes down
Liverpool Street. But they only give 10% chance for that one, sadly.
That's really sad.
I think nobody will deny that the only unused space left in London, is
space between house *above* roads - so such project could be very
useful and really change transport situation for the better.

The sky isn't unused, it has amenity value. In America they have
progressively torn down the Els and replaced them with subways on the same
alignment.

Exactly - elevated monorails are very visually intrusive, despite the
slimmer supports and tracks. If they are intended to go down existing
streets, most streets in London would look completely closed in if an
elevated monorail were running down them. The video shows them on
Waterloo Bridge, Euston Road, at Canary Wharf - where there is a lot of
space.

As well as being eyesores, urban monorails also drop oil on people
below, which will not go down well. The one in Sydney has strategic
oil-catchers under the track at places where either people congregate
under the track (i.e. at a pedestrian crossing where they might stand
and wait for a green light) or where trains stop or slow down a lot
(e.g. tight corners).

I have never seen a "top suspended" monorail like the one in that
video though. Doesn't such a design make it massively more complex, in
that the trains have to be so much stronger to hang from something
rather than just sit there on a concrete beam? It's certainly going to
make the track bed harder to get through, because the pylons will have
to be so much higher, and it'll be more difficult to integrate track
and buildings. For instance the Sydney monorail goes through the
middle of the odd building (some of which were there before they built
it) and is just sitting on top of the building walls (no doubt
strengthened), top-hung must be way more challenging to poke through
existing structures or tight spaces.