"Joe" wrote in message
...
John Rowland wrote:

I'll believe that when I see it!

It has been said before;
a monorail is a poor, expensive solution for a transportation system.

monorail, n. A railway with more than two rails.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote:
"Joe" wrote...
John Rowland wrote:

I'll believe that when I see it!

It has been said before;
a monorail is a poor, expensive solution for a transportation system.

monorail, n. A railway with more than two rails.

LOL... until I remember that the Tube has four!

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, John Rowland wrote:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...7&section=news

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

I'll believe that when I see it!

There's at least one picture of it in the architecture gallery at the RA
summer exhibition (which has some good stuff this year - worth a visit for
the architecture and the drawings by non-artists, even if the real art is
the usual twee toss).

tom

--
Gotta treat 'em mean to make 'em scream.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, John Rowland wrote:


http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...7&section=news


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

I'll believe that when I see it!

There's at least one picture of it in the architecture gallery at
the RA summer exhibition (which has some good stuff this year -
worth a visit for the architecture and the drawings by
non-artists, even if the real art is the usual twee toss).

Presumably it's one of the pictures that's already available on the web.
According to articles in The Wharf, the freesheet that circulates around
Canary Wharf, it "will achieve speeds of around 30 miles per hour in
town" (less than the tubes), and "would carry as many as 20,000
passengers an hour to and from Liverpool St [from Canary Wharf] in under
12 minutes". Note that Crossrail would carry up to 24,000 passsengers
an hour to Liverpool Street in 7 minutes (from Isle of Dogs, aka west
India Quay), would also relieve congestion on other routes, and would
not blight the street scene in the process.

Ken Livingstone provided the following response to a question from a GLA
member in January 2002, when Monometro was called Dragonfly MonoMetro:
"All monorail systems have common problems and failings which make them
difficult to justify. Monorails have operational drawbacks; are
incompatible with existing systems; have great difficulty in providing
safe evacuation routes and meeting the requirements of the Disability
Discrimination Act. All elevated monorails also have the disadvantage of
intrusive and unattractive structures. From the material shown to TfL
officers they have concluded that Dragonfly concept has not yet produced
any new ideas that overcome the basic drawbacks of monorails."

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Richard J. wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, John Rowland wrote:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackage...7&section=news

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

I'll believe that when I see it!

There's at least one picture of it in the architecture gallery at
the RA summer exhibition (which has some good stuff this year -
worth a visit for the architecture and the drawings by
non-artists, even if the real art is the usual twee toss).

Presumably it's one of the pictures that's already available on the web.

Correct. ISTR that there's also a version of the tube map done in funny
colours that's somehow related. All a bit daft, really.

[Ken said that] All elevated monorails also have the disadvantage of
intrusive and unattractive structures.

I'm not at all convinced by this. I think a well-done elevated route can
be rather elegant, and it's great to travel on - i really like the bits of
the West Anglia line where you can look down on people's houses!

tom

--
They entered the Vortex and the dreams became reality

Richard J. wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

There's at least one picture of it in the architecture gallery at
the RA summer exhibition (which has some good stuff this year -
worth a visit for the architecture and the drawings by
non-artists, even if the real art is the usual twee toss).

Presumably it's one of the pictures that's already available on the web.
According to articles in The Wharf, the freesheet that circulates around
Canary Wharf, it "will achieve speeds of around 30 miles per hour in
town" (less than the tubes),

....But more than the buses.

and "would carry as many as 20,000
passengers an hour to and from Liverpool St [from Canary Wharf] in under
12 minutes". Note that Crossrail would carry up to 24,000 passsengers
an hour to Liverpool Street in 7 minutes (from Isle of Dogs, aka west
India Quay), would also relieve congestion on other routes, and would
not blight the street scene in the process.

But the monorail has the advantage of being cheaper by nearly a billion
pounds!

So West India Quay is now their preferred Isle Of Dogs location, is it?

Ken Livingstone provided the following response to a question from a GLA
member in January 2002, when Monometro was called Dragonfly MonoMetro:
"All monorail systems have common problems and failings which make them
difficult to justify. Monorails have operational drawbacks; are
incompatible with existing systems; have great difficulty in providing
safe evacuation routes and meeting the requirements of the Disability
Discrimination Act. All elevated monorails also have the disadvantage of
intrusive and unattractive structures. From the material shown to TfL
officers they have concluded that Dragonfly concept has not yet produced
any new ideas that overcome the basic drawbacks of monorails."

I regard that criticism as overly harsh. Monorails don't have major
operational drawbacks. Although compatibility with existing systems is
very important when building a network, there are some situations where
there's a simple requirement to fulfil, after which little or no growth
is expected. In these situations the costs of compatibility outweigh the
benefits.

Monorails are far easier to make accessible than underground railways.
The structures required for monorails are considerably lighter than
those required for elevated railways, and are not unattractive if well
designed (despite emergency evacuation requirements making the job far
harder than it would otherwise be). Intrusiveness depends on where they
run - obviously they're not well suited to suburban residential streets,
but in the Canary Wharf area they'd fit right in. I'd like to see a
monorail loop orbitting Canary Wharf, linking office towers with piers
on the Thames (on both the upstream and downstream sides) where
commuters can catch boats. It could also serve Poplar, which is the
least illogical location for a Crossrail station in the vicinity.

Linking Canary Wharf and Liverpool Street by monorail would be far more
controversial. I think buses are the best solution for the moment, at
least until monorails have proved themselves or the more urgently needed
Crossrail lines have been constructed.

--
Aidan Stanger
[In favour of Crossrail, but not to the Isle Of Dogs]

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Richard J. wrote:

Note that Crossrail would carry up to 24,000
passsengers an hour to Liverpool Street in 7 minutes (from Isle of
Dogs, aka west India Quay), ...

So West India Quay is now their preferred Isle Of Dogs location, is
it?

I think it always has been. Crossrail is planned to run under the north
dock in the same way that the Jubilee runs under the centre dock, but
leaving more water in it than the Jubilee did.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

(Aidan Stanger) wrote in message ...
I regard that criticism as overly harsh. Monorails don't have major
operational drawbacks. Although compatibility with existing systems is

Monorails are complex and the trains are generally small making them prone
to problems and also cramped.

Monorails are far easier to make accessible than underground railways.
The structures required for monorails are considerably lighter than
those required for elevated railways, and are not unattractive if well

Only because they don't have to carry the same weight because of the teensy
trains. Make the trains a useful size and it would be a different story.

designed (despite emergency evacuation requirements making the job far
harder than it would otherwise be). Intrusiveness depends on where they

Yes , its a pity people have to escape in an emergency but there you go.
Given that most people arn't going to be too comfortable jumping 20 or 30 feet
to the ground or do a tightroap act along the rail a walkway would probably
have to be included in any serious mass transit monorail (as opposed to some
mickey mouse system - pun intended - as at disney world).

run - obviously they're not well suited to suburban residential streets,
but in the Canary Wharf area they'd fit right in. I'd like to see a
monorail loop orbitting Canary Wharf, linking office towers with piers

What the hell for? The DLR is already there and you can walk from one end of
the main business district to the other in under 10 minutes.

Linking Canary Wharf and Liverpool Street by monorail would be far more
controversial. I think buses are the best solution for the moment, at
least until monorails have proved themselves or the more urgently needed
Crossrail lines have been constructed.

Monorails have been around for 50 years. If they were going to prove themselves
in mass transit they would have done so by now. They haven't. I think that
about says it all. Perhaps it would be kinder to leave them in their 1950s
Vision Of The Future magazine articles along with kitchen robots and hover cars.

B2003

Boltar wrote:

(Aidan Stanger) wrote...
I regard that criticism as overly harsh. Monorails don't have major
operational drawbacks. Although compatibility with existing systems is

Monorails are complex and the trains are generally small making them prone
to problems and also cramped.

What problems are caused by smallness?

The cramping problem should be easy enough to solve by increasing the
seat pitch.

Monorails are far easier to make accessible than underground railways.
The structures required for monorails are considerably lighter than
those required for elevated railways, and are not unattractive if well

Only because they don't have to carry the same weight because of the teensy
trains. Make the trains a useful size and it would be a different story.

For many applications the normal narrow monorail trains are a useful
size. Not everything requires Tube capacity.

designed (despite emergency evacuation requirements making the job far
harder than it would otherwise be). Intrusiveness depends on where they

Yes , its a pity people have to escape in an emergency but there you go.
Given that most people arn't going to be too comfortable jumping 20 or 30 feet
to the ground or do a tightroap act along the rail a walkway would probably
have to be included in any serious mass transit monorail (as opposed to some
mickey mouse system - pun intended - as at disney world).

Some emergency access walkways would be required, but they need not be
continous - just over one doorpitch per trainlength should be enough.

run - obviously they're not well suited to suburban residential streets,
but in the Canary Wharf area they'd fit right in. I'd like to see a
monorail loop orbitting Canary Wharf, linking office towers with piers

What the hell for? The DLR is already there and you can walk from one end of
the main business district to the other in under 10 minutes.

The main business district is expanding. Also, currently most people
arrive by Tube or DLR which brings them into the middle of the MBD.
However, loadings are very high, and there's a limit to capacity. Sooner
or later, decent boat services and/or a Crossrail line will be needed.
Boats can only serve the edges of the estate, and it would be far more
sensible to put a Crossrail station on the surface at Poplar than
underground in the West India Dock. A monorail would make it easier for
people to get around.

Linking Canary Wharf and Liverpool Street by monorail would be far more
controversial. I think buses are the best solution for the moment, at
least until monorails have proved themselves or the more urgently needed
Crossrail lines have been constructed.

Monorails have been around for 50 years. If they were going to prove
themselves in mass transit they would have done so by now.

That depends what you mean by "prove themselves in mass transit". Many
monorails are very successful doing the job they were designed for.

They haven't. I think that about says it all. Perhaps it would be kinder
to leave them in their 1950s Vision Of The Future magazine articles along
with kitchen robots and hover cars.

Monorails will never be anywhere near as common as light rail systems,
but that's not the point. There are many situations where they would do
the job more efficiently than anything else. They should not be excluded
from these.

(Aidan Stanger) wrote the following in:


Monorails are far easier to make accessible than underground
railways. The structures required for monorails are considerably
lighter than those required for elevated railways, and are not
unattractive if well designed (despite emergency evacuation
requirements making the job far harder than it would otherwise
be). Intrusiveness depends on where they run - obviously they're
not well suited to suburban residential streets, but in the Canary
Wharf area they'd fit right in.

But Canary Wharf already has the DLR! It doesn't need a monorail.

--
message by Robin May-Silk and his close friend, Robert Kilroy-Kotton
"GIVE IN! IT'S TIME TO GO!" - The NHS offers a high standard of care.

Would you take the office of relief?:
http://robinmay.fotopic.net/p4600200.html