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

(Aidan Stanger) wrote in message ...
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?

Its not the smallness , its the complexity. The amount of wheel related
gubbins required simply to keep them on the track is far greater than that
required by a normal train.

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.

Even tube trains IMO are too small for the aount of commuters trying to use
them these days. Something even smaller would be pretty hopeless.

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

In most monorails Ive seen you can't walk through the cars because of the
socking great main running wheels at either end.

The main business district is expanding. Also, currently most people
arrive by Tube or DLR which brings them into the middle of the MBD.

Which means they're about 5 mins walk from most of the offices. They'd
probably have to wait that long for a monorail train to turn up.
Pointless.

sensible to put a Crossrail station on the surface at Poplar than

I'd love to see how you'd squeeze it in without having to demolish the DLR
station or a whole load of buildings first.

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

Which is as short distance , slow, low capacity people movers. Not the ideal
solution for a city that needs long distance , fast , high capacity transport.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) wrote...
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?

Its not the smallness , its the complexity. The amount of wheel related
gubbins required simply to keep them on the track is far greater than that
required by a normal train.

Of course it is, but that doesn't make it unreliable.

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.

Even tube trains IMO are too small for the aount of commuters trying to use
them these days. Something even smaller would be pretty hopeless.

Even on the Tube network there are some uncongested sections. Just
because some lines are overcrowded doesn't mean that high capacity is
needed everywhere.

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

In most monorails Ive seen you can't walk through the cars because of the
socking great main running wheels at either end.

I admit it's a while since I've been on a monorail, but I thought it was
continuous. Which monorails are you referring to?

The main business district is expanding. Also, currently most people
arrive by Tube or DLR which brings them into the middle of the MBD.

Which means they're about 5 mins walk from most of the offices. They'd
probably have to wait that long for a monorail train to turn up.
Pointless.

Why do you think the headways would be so long?

sensible to put a Crossrail station on the surface at Poplar than

I'd love to see how you'd squeeze it in without having to demolish the DLR
station or a whole load of buildings first.

I can think of two ways to do it. The first is to surface in what's
currently the DLR depot. The second involves surfacing in West India
Dock Road and then climbing steeply to above the DLR station.

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

Which is as short distance , slow, low capacity people movers. Not the ideal
solution for a city that needs long distance , fast , high capacity transport.

Just because a city needs long distance fast high capacity transport
doesn't mean it doesn't also nead short distance, slow, medium capacity
people movers.

(Aidan Stanger) wrote the following in:


Boltar wrote:

Which is as short distance , slow, low capacity people movers.
Not the ideal solution for a city that needs long distance , fast
, high capacity transport.

Just because a city needs long distance fast high capacity
transport doesn't mean it doesn't also nead short distance, slow,
medium capacity people movers.

But not in Canary Wharf! In Canary Wharf the place you need to get to
is either so close that you can walk or it's within easy reach of a DLR
station.

--
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

Robin May wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) wrote:
Boltar wrote:

Which is as short distance , slow, low capacity people movers.
Not the ideal solution for a city that needs long distance , fast
, high capacity transport.

Just because a city needs long distance fast high capacity
transport doesn't mean it doesn't also nead short distance, slow,
medium capacity people movers.

But not in Canary Wharf! In Canary Wharf the place you need to get to
is either so close that you can walk or it's within easy reach of a DLR
station.

That is the case at the moment, but do you expect it to remain like that
for ever? It is quite a long walk to the river on the downstream side.
The DLR capacity is finite, and boats are the obvious solution, but
because the piers can only be located on the edge of the estate, and
detouring via Greenwich is time consuming, a monorail loop would be
quite useful.

--
message by Robin May-Silk and his close friend, Robert Kilroy-Kotton

When did you get appointed QC? :-)

"GIVE IN! IT'S TIME TO GO!" - The NHS offers a high standard of care.

DON'T GIVE IN SO EASILY! - There's still hope for the routemaster.

(Aidan Stanger) wrote in message ...
Boltar wrote:
not the smallness , its the complexity. The amount of wheel related
gubbins required simply to keep them on the track is far greater than that
required by a normal train.

Of course it is, but that doesn't make it unreliable.

Well ok , lets just say theres more to go wrong and maintenance may well be
more costly.

Even on the Tube network there are some uncongested sections. Just
because some lines are overcrowded doesn't mean that high capacity is
needed everywhere.

True, but those sections tend to be way out in the suburbs , not in central
london as you were suggesting.

I admit it's a while since I've been on a monorail, but I thought it was
continuous. Which monorails are you referring to?

The other day I saw pictures of the new Las Vegas monorail (which is quite
long at 4 miles) and they were non walk through cars so I'm assuming they
are an example of state of the art "mass" transit monorails. I would post
a link but I've lost it though I'm sure google can provide one quite
quickly.

Which means they're about 5 mins walk from most of the offices. They'd
probably have to wait that long for a monorail train to turn up.
Pointless.

Why do you think the headways would be so long?

If you're going to have these slow trains only a few minutes apart you're going
to needs lots of trains which means lots of expense which rather defeats the
object of using a monorail as a cheap alternative.

Just because a city needs long distance fast high capacity transport
doesn't mean it doesn't also nead short distance, slow, medium capacity
people movers.

But we already have them , they're called buses.

B2003

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...

The DLR capacity is finite, and boats are the
obvious solution, but because the piers can
only be located on the edge of the estate, and
detouring via Greenwich is time consuming, a
monorail loop would be quite useful.

Can boats not cut through the docks?

--
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:
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...

The DLR capacity is finite, and boats are the
obvious solution, but because the piers can
only be located on the edge of the estate, and
detouring via Greenwich is time consuming, a
monorail loop would be quite useful.

Can boats not cut through the docks?

The locks would slow them down, so not much advantage.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
(Aidan Stanger) wrote in message
...
Boltar wrote:
snippitity-snip

If you're going to have these slow trains only a few minutes apart you're
going
to needs lots of trains which means lots of expense which rather defeats
the
object of using a monorail as a cheap alternative.

Just because a city needs long distance fast high capacity transport
doesn't mean it doesn't also nead short distance, slow, medium capacity
people movers.

But we already have them , they're called buses.

Mind you, if you want something abit quicker you could always use one of
these...
http://www.transrapid.de/en/index.html
....400kph down the middle of Oxford Street, that would be worth seeing...;-)
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change from jealous to sad to reply.