DREAM ON!
 

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/sil...mand-monorail/

DREAM ON!
 

wrote:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/sil...mand-monorail/

I may be missing something, but doesn't Old Street already have a perfectly
good (fast and frequent) underground rail link to Kings Cross?

DREAM ON!
 

On 21.11.15 16:52, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/sil...mand-monorail/

I may be missing something, but doesn't Old Street already have a perfectly
good (fast and frequent) underground rail link to Kings Cross?


But it's not cool enough, mannnnn!

DREAM ON!
 

On 21/11/2015 17:09, wrote:
On 21.11.15 16:52, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/sil...mand-monorail/


I may be missing something, but doesn't Old Street already have a
perfectly
good (fast and frequent) underground rail link to Kings Cross?


But it's not cool enough, mannnnn!

Or is there an alternative route that needs transport?

If you were to go down Old Street from Old Street underground, along
Clerkenwell Road, then up Farringdon Road and Kings Cross Road you'd
actually in fill a few areas which are not well served by public
transport at the moment. Going eastbound back to Hoxton or Shoreditch
High Street would also be rather helpful too.

DREAM ON!
 

On 2015\11\21 16:52, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/sil...mand-monorail/

I may be missing something, but doesn't Old Street already have a perfectly
good (fast and frequent) underground rail link to Kings Cross?

It also has direct trains to Gordon Hill, Hadley Wood, High Barnet, Mill
Hill East and Edgware, so I'm not sure what northern suburbs they would
go to Kings Cross for.

DREAM ON!
 

On 21/11/2015 16:33, wrote:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/sil...mand-monorail/


Ironic that gizmodo use an illustration of the doomed Moscow Monorail in
their article :)

PA

DREAM ON!
 

On 22.11.15 11:17, Peter Able wrote:
On 21/11/2015 16:33, wrote:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/sil...mand-monorail/



Ironic that gizmodo use an illustration of the doomed Moscow Monorail in
their article :)

PA

I noticed that as well, especially considering that the Moscow City
Government is seriously considering dismantling a part of it.

Let's not forget about Sydney.

I'm sure that it has been discussed on a number of occasions, but I am
not clear why monorails don't enjoy the same amount of success as rail.

DREAM ON!
 

wrote:
On 22.11.15 11:17, Peter Able wrote:
On 21/11/2015 16:33, wrote:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/sil...mand-monorail/



Ironic that gizmodo use an illustration of the doomed Moscow Monorail in
their article :)


I noticed that as well, especially considering that the Moscow City
Government is seriously considering dismantling a part of it.

Let's not forget about Sydney.

I'm sure that it has been discussed on a number of occasions, but I am
not clear why monorails don't enjoy the same amount of success as rail.

Talking of which, I see that the Wupperthal danglebahn is getting new
trains.

DREAM ON!
 

On 22.11.15 16:19, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 22.11.15 11:17, Peter Able wrote:
On 21/11/2015 16:33, wrote:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/sil...mand-monorail/



Ironic that gizmodo use an illustration of the doomed Moscow Monorail in
their article :)


I noticed that as well, especially considering that the Moscow City
Government is seriously considering dismantling a part of it.

Let's not forget about Sydney.

I'm sure that it has been discussed on a number of occasions, but I am
not clear why monorails don't enjoy the same amount of success as rail.

Talking of which, I see that the Wupperthal danglebahn is getting new
trains.

I saw.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/u...on-15-car.html

Those could not have been cheap, considering their unique design.

DREAM ON!
 

On 22/11/2015 15:49, wrote:

I'm sure that it has been discussed on a number of occasions, but I am
not clear why monorails don't enjoy the same amount of success as rail.

I'd guess the reason is that they are often built for prestige, rather
than rational reasons.

PA

DREAM ON!
 

On 22/11/2015 16:38, wrote:
On 22.11.15 16:19, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 22.11.15 11:17, Peter Able wrote:
On 21/11/2015 16:33, wrote:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/11/sil...mand-monorail/




Ironic that gizmodo use an illustration of the doomed Moscow
Monorail in
their article :)


I noticed that as well, especially considering that the Moscow City
Government is seriously considering dismantling a part of it.

Let's not forget about Sydney.

I'm sure that it has been discussed on a number of occasions, but I am
not clear why monorails don't enjoy the same amount of success as rail.

Talking of which, I see that the Wupperthal danglebahn is getting new
trains.

I saw.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/u...on-15-car.html


Those could not have been cheap, considering their unique design.

I'm amazed by the weight of them - 25 tonnes - I'd have thought that
given they dangle weight would have been an important consideration.

DREAM ON!
 

On Sunday, 22 November 2015 15:49:53 UTC, wrote:

I noticed that as well, especially considering that the Moscow City
Government is seriously considering dismantling a part of it.

Let's not forget about Sydney.

And North Haverbrook.

DREAM ON!
 

On 23/11/2015 10:44, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:10:45 +0000, Someone Somewhere
wrote:


Talking of which, I see that the Wupperthal danglebahn is getting new
trains.

I saw.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/u...on-15-car.html


Those could not have been cheap, considering their unique design.

I'm amazed by the weight of them - 25 tonnes - I'd have thought that
given they dangle weight would have been an important consideration.
Doesn't make much difference really
A good part of the weight will the running gear wheels, motors and the
bogie frames They will be supported direct by the wheels on top of the
rail just like an ordinary train though the rail will have to be
strong enough for 100% of the weight rather than 50%.
The suspension arms and the body work which hang below will be
relatively light in comparison to the mechanicals.

Quick google, Found this which is a fansite
http://www.schwebebahn-in-wuppertal.de/neuezuegee.htm

The figures don't add up to 25 tonnes though, two bogies at 12.5
Tonnes does , then bodies at 5.4 Tonnes so a car 30.5 in total.
Wonder which is the more accurate figure, anyhow looking at the specs
for the older cars the ratio of running gear to body work weight
seems to be similar .

G.Harman

Interesting - thanks.

Next question - I'm surprised the inside of the vehicles isn't more
symmetrical...

DREAM ON!
 

In article ,
() wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:10:45 +0000, Someone Somewhere
wrote:

Talking of which, I see that the Wupperthal danglebahn is getting new
trains.

I saw.


http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/u...rtal-welcomes-
generation-15-car.html

Those could not have been cheap, considering their unique design.

I'm amazed by the weight of them - 25 tonnes - I'd have thought that
given they dangle weight would have been an important consideration.
Doesn't make much difference really
A good part of the weight will the running gear wheels, motors and the
bogie frames They will be supported direct by the wheels on top of the
rail just like an ordinary train though the rail will have to be
strong enough for 100% of the weight rather than 50%.
The suspension arms and the body work which hang below will be
relatively light in comparison to the mechanicals.

Quick google, Found this which is a fansite
http://www.schwebebahn-in-wuppertal.de/neuezuegee.htm

The figures don't add up to 25 tonnes though, two bogies at 12.5
Tonnes does , then bodies at 5.4 Tonnes so a car 30.5 in total.
Wonder which is the more accurate figure, anyhow looking at the specs
for the older cars the ratio of running gear to body work weight
seems to be similar .

30.4 tonnes sounds more likely to me. 25 tonnes would be very light for a
modern rail vehicle.

--
Colin Rosenstiel