Check out page 12 of this week's Time Out, which includes a page on future
London transports and the likelihood of them ever being built. I was
surprised that they only gave 35% chance for the CrossRiver tram,
considerably less than 45% for the Oxford Street tram.

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.

Incidentally, in case some people here don't know about the MonoMetro
Suspended Transport, some videos are he

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOQyFYXQSEQ


At the risk of sounding like a chavvy teenager, it is totally cool. The
video is sexy - a bit repetitive but you just really wish it would happen.
This project completely passed me by. Calling it MonoMetro 2012 is I'm sure
utterly unrealistic, even if it happens at all. I see in Time Out that it
was to link Liverpool Street with the Isle of Dogs and Stratford. I wonder
whether, since there's no way it could happen by 2012, they'll still bother
about Stratford.

OK they'll miss the Olympics, but they'll still have the International
station, and they'll still have Stratford City business centre that, if our
mayor Sir Robin Wales is right, will turn Stratford into a major business
and shopping centre - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratford_City

Anyway... what's of all these projects? We've spoken at length about
CrossRiver so probably not necessary to discuss much more.

For the benefit of those not living in London, or too cheap to buy Time
Out, I'll give you their likelihood of ever being made percentages - buy
the magazine if you want to read why they give those percentages.

OFFSHORE LONDON AIRPORT: 10%
CROSSRIVER TRAM: 35%
OXFORD STREET TRAM: 45%
MONOMETRO: 10%
BATTERSEA POWER STATION RIVERBUS: 40%
EXHIBITION ROAD CLEAR-OUT: 85%
THAMESLINK 2012: 60%

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.

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.

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.

A central London monorail system was proposed in the 1960s but soon
abandoned. A key sticking point was the station infrastructure. A
monorail may look slimline, but an elevated station certainly does not -
you need platforms, stairs and lifts. The station shown on Euston Road
in the video already makes the street look very enclosed - imagine what
it would look like on a narrower typical street such as Regent St or
Oxford Street. People already complain about the intrusiveness of tram
overhead power lines - imagine the reaction to a two-track monorail down
Oxford Street!

Another irritation for office workers or residents of flats and houses
next to a monorail route is that their reasonably private first or
second floor room suddenly becomes a fishbowl for thousands of people
gawping in every hour.

Pie-in-the-sky impractical idea. Nice video though.

--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Pie-in-the-sky impractical idea. Nice video though.

Do you have anything better?
Redecorating old tube? Even if they will fix it, it will still be
crowded, tiny, and hot.

The only other real long-term solution is to dig a new underground with
at least the same scope as the current tube (and preferably even
larger, including south). But I'm sure it won't happen in our
lifetimes.

Dave Arquati wrote:

Another irritation for office workers or residents of flats and houses
next to a monorail route is that their reasonably private first or
second floor room suddenly becomes a fishbowl for thousands of people
gawping in every hour.

Singapore has an interesting solution to that; their residential-zone
"mini-metros" have LCD windows, which are automatically blacked out at
predefined locations where privacy might be an issue.

Neil

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dave Arquati wrote:

Another irritation for office workers or residents of flats and houses
next to a monorail route is that their reasonably private first or
second floor room suddenly becomes a fishbowl for thousands of people
gawping in every hour.

Singapore has an interesting solution to that; their residential-zone
"mini-metros" have LCD windows, which are automatically blacked out at
predefined locations where privacy might be an issue.

Neil


I live on the (raised) first floor and I'd love a monorail gliding past
every 5 minutes - and if the passengers get the occasional eyeful, good for
them!

x

Dave Arquati wrote in
:

SNIP
A central London monorail system was proposed in the 1960s but soon
abandoned. A key sticking point was the station infrastructure. A
monorail may look slimline, but an elevated station certainly does not
- you need platforms, stairs and lifts. The station shown on Euston
Road in the video already makes the street look very enclosed -
imagine what it would look like on a narrower typical street such as
Regent St or Oxford Street. People already complain about the
intrusiveness of tram overhead power lines - imagine the reaction to a
two-track monorail down Oxford Street!
SNIP


I know the video has other parts of London such as Euston Road and various
bridges with a MonoMetro, but as far as I know, the plan is just for a
connection between Liverpool Street, Isle of Dogs and Stratford City, isn't
it? So it shouldn't be too intrusive.

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.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Peter Frimberley wrote:

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.

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?

Er, no. Rather than supporting N tonnes on a rail beneath them, they have
to support N tonnes on a rail above them. The difference will be that a
bottom-rail system is in compression, while a top-rail system is in
tension, which are completely differnt types of load. However, i believe
that common engineering materials, like steel and carbon fibre, perform
better in tension than compression, although IANAengineer. If that's true,
it would mean top-rail systems could be lighter.

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.

Will it? You need exactly the same sized hole through buildings, just with
the rail at the top rather than the bottom.

tom

--
It is better to create badly than to appreciate well. -- Gareth Jones