Robin Cox wrote:
"Steve Peake" wrote in message
...
Are all monorail schemes run by loons?

The recent one round here was from Ambersham Group , who I hear
have a history of failed monorail ideas, running from Western
international market to the new brentford football ground. I
couldn't come up with a more crazy scheme if I tried.

I thought it was to run from Heathrow to Hammersmith, along the A4?

Originally, the idea was a monorail from the WIM to Lionel Road, the
proposed site of Brentford FC's new stadium (behind Kew Bridge station).
Currently, Ambersham are said to be developing a scheme to run from
Heathrow to Lionel Road along the A30 and A4.[1] Since Ambersham's
monorail schemes have a capacity of only 1000 to 3000 people per hour,
this doesn't seem very suitable for a football club. On second
thoughts, they could probably cope with Brentford's gates.

[1] http://www.beesunited.org.uk/lionelr...happening.html

The only scheme for a Heathrow-Hammersmith link along the A4 that I'm
aware of was Hounslow's tram idea.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

I find my mind drawn to the Simpsons episode about the Springfield
Monorail...

wrote:

I find my mind drawn to the Simpsons episode about the Springfield
Monorail...

"But Central Line's all cracked and broken"
"Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken"
"Monorail! Monorail! MONORAIL!!!!"



--
James Farrar |
London, SE13 |

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

Steve Peake wrote:
The recent one round here was from Ambersham Group , who I hear have a
history of failed monorail ideas, running from Western international market
to the new brentford football ground. I couldn't come up with a more crazy
scheme if I tried.

Are they the same company who sold one to Springfield.
--
To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline
For railway information, news and photos see
http://www.railways-online.co.uk

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]

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!

Sounds like an interesting idea. Pity their site at www.monometro.com
seems to be down. The 6-car monorail train they picture looks like it
would be pretty much equivalent to a Central Line train, so the
capacity argument against it doesn't seem too strong. Does anyone know
exactly what routes and stations these guys are proposing? There seem
to be vague suggestions of Oxford St, the Marylebone Road, and the
Isle of Dogs in the media.

"John Rowland" wrote in message ...
Hi all,

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!

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