Why monorails are bad as public transport - Monorails
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 08. 2024
- In todays video, we take a look at monorails, why they're bad for public transport and what they're actually good for
Please subscribe for more
This video falls under the fair use act of 1976 This video is available to use under the appropriate Creative Commons Licence.
Any images used that fall under any Creative Commons Licence belong to their respective owners.
Though limited, there's a really good example of how a monorail system was the best option for a cities public transit. Take a look at Wuppertal's Schwebebahn in Germany. There, the unique geology, plus the cities unusual design characteristics, meant the monorail, or suspension railway, was the best choice. Surprised you didn't use that as a good example at the end. It's been in existence since 1897-1903, only really halted by war and refurbishment. You showed pictures, but I'd say that's a good example of how monorail can be used well for mas/commute transit where other systems would not.
Yep, it uses space with would otherwise have gone to waste, and several historical buildings were saved in the process!
Wuppertal's system also just looks good, the late 1800 metallic supports and the beautifully modern trains make it just beautiful
It's symptomatic for +Train of Thought's oversimplified PoV. If you travel on a Hochbahn, high above ground light rail, you have the same "safely dismount" - problems.
Monorails are a practical solution for very niche problems. Wuppertal is one of those examples, in 1903, there wasn't the same economy of scale (which started with the Einheitslokomotiven and ELNA in the 1920s, at the earliest with the G12 in 1917).
The big problem is that oversimplifications like that tend to also group VHST like Transrapid or the SCMaglev into "Monorail". Very High Speed Trains (300-800km/h) are terribly inefficient if you use conventional rail, and don't compete with other rail lines, but domestic air travel. And are right now what we desperately need to cut carbon dioxyde emissions.
ToT called it "slightly less impractical", but construction/freight monorail actually are lengths more efficient than lorries or Feldbahn (60cm) temporary railways. Yes, you might run into problems with your point-to-point rail if you should, for reasons beyond all practical reason, require switches. If you require a switch in your point-to-point route, you may have to manually lift the car from the rail and put it onto another rail. But you safe on an expensive, over-dimensioned, road legal, taxed lorry.
I don't doubt the Wuppertal monorail is a cool, well-functioning system, but you could easily replace it with a conventional elevated metro. The structure would have to be wider, though, that would require more material and stronger pillars.
IMO Chongqing is a better example. They needed to climb steep gradients which rules out steel wheels (Wuppertal also uses steel-on-steel adhesion, btw). You could solve that problem with an Alstom-style rubber-tyred metro, but I guess that is going to be as much of a hassle as a monorail.
@@robertzaenglein7347 Yeah, but you're not taking into account the cultural or historical significance of Wuppertal's elevated railway. You could argue the same for San Francisco's cable cars. They're outdated, and modern busses could easily take over. Indeed, they tried to do that back in the 50s an 60s.. But people would have none of it. The system was part of the cities identity, and it's not exactly useless either, so they kept what was left, listed it, and now it serves a great purpose, for tourists and locals alike. An example of transport heritage that still servers a purpose. Back to Wuppertal's system, they'res no need for rubber adhesion cause the route does not trevers any harsh or steep grades. The suspension cars have work well in this fashion for well over a century now.
4:08 that is a bizarre sight. It is the most obvious way to get track ballast to tracks, but seeing a freight train on the Underground, especially a deep level line, is still odd.
Same
I would be so excited to see something like that
Yeah, try that in Toronto. Except for the newer lines they deliberately used different gauge specifically to prevent hauling freight in trolley tracks. Most agencies cannot run standard rail cars on their transit systems. Even those that do handle some freight often have specially designed and built freight cars.
It's not a freight train, it's actually a service train carrying ballast for the railbedding.
It's a TFL service trainset, not a freight train. It's hauling equipment needed for track repairs within the deep level system.
I used to work with the Yui Monorail in Okinawa Japan. There are some specific cases where monorail was the better option. in the Naha area, there's tons of narrow but busy roads, and the landscape is hilly. Its also a coral island, so digging a subway is not feasible. Monorail was chosen because of its ability to more easily climb hills. It looks "futuristic" as you said, which gives it more public support. the rail is thin, so it doesn't impact the skyline as much, and for the many tourists that visit Okinawa, they get a nice view of the island. Also, due to how dense the city is and how difficult developers could acquire land, they chose to build a large portion of the monorail over the river. Okinawa also has a ton of powerful typhoons and there has been no major issues yet. Had they went to to a grade level Tram or Light rain, while the infrastructure would be cheaper, there certainly would have been a ton of operational issues. There would be far more traffic as it would have taken an existing street lane, and given the amount of tourists that can't drive well in Japan, drunk drivers (its an issue in Okinawa), etc, there probably would have been more accidents and even fatalities.
I love the monorail in Naha Okinawa! It’s convenient and connects to important places in Naha such as the airport, the main shopping area and the old palace. Tourists do not always find it easy to navigate the bus network and there is no underground railway in the city (reason as explained above). And I agree that it offers a wonderful view of the city from a vantage point for the tourists as well as the locals.
Would building an elevated tram line solve the problem?
I actually enjoyed the Sydney Monorail... But I was twelve at the time
Me 2, to bad they were to expensive for a ride to travel
They look cool, and can be very enjoyable, it's just that they are not really a good option for a city to build compared to the rest
I think I was five when it closed
Nice twokinds profile picture
I have a mini monorail
My favourite monorail is the Shonan Monorail, located on the edge of the Greater Tokyo Area. It's a suspended monorail that I think stands out for achieving absolutely insane space efficiency in terms of its ground infrastructure, which I think proves that there is still a bit of underutilised potential with the mode.
Surprisingly you can achieve the same thing with standard monorail nowadays. With less support needed
It's surprising how far structural science has achieve
Greater Tokyo areas are one of the few exceptions that monorail is viable due to their existing vast rail infrastructure. Monorail are just fit for niche cases like that.
There's also the suspended monorail in Wuppertaler called the Wuppertaler Schwebebahn... was also built in like 1901 which is a feat of engineering for the time. It's uniquely positioned due to it running mostly above the river. The Tim Traveler and Tom Scott each have videos on it.
Japan has a very extensive public transport infrastructure. Even in the case of Japan, monorail is only a small minority. China is also the same, compared to their entire network, monorail is next to nothing. Outside those two countries, most opt for LRT instead. There's a reason why the monorail is called gadgetbahn.
Monorails have the appeal of simply looking futuristic. They're that kind of thing that you stand in and go "man, I'm living in the future." Especially those ones that dangle from an overhead rail.
Even though the technology is really old now, it still maintains that sort of...retro-future appeal, aesthetically.
I'd argue that this is because they are sort of a "future that has yet to come." Because they're so rare (due to their disadvantages) they have a novelty value, still feel futuristic because they aren't common in the present or past, even though the technology has existed for a very long time. But it is unlikely they'll be common in the future either.
I love the 80s ones they are just so sick!! the Gold Coast one was so amazing
Apart from that steam-operated one in Ireland.
this is why conan o'brien wrote 'marge versus the monorail'
Only ignorant idiots think that. Sorry.
There is a monorail in the Orlando, FL airport. That airport also has a hotel inside it the monorail is used to connect multiple terminals together, making what would be a 45min-1hr walk roughly a 5min or less monorail ride. Definitely useful there, but again, very limited.
EDIT: I stand corrected, I stand corrected! 😂
That's an Automated People Mover or APM not a monorail.
@@randomscb-40charger78 it is? I thought it was a monorail...
@@awesomecronk7183 it has car tires, an automated bus train thing
@@awesomecronk7183 Nope, not at all.
@@awesomecronk7183 I think a lot of visitors to FL confuse one kind of APM's with monorails, reasonably, that kind of APM uses a central guiderail
Disappointed that the monorails of Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook were not discussed
And the video wasn't clear in discussing if there's a chance the track could bend...
i hear they glide as softly as a cloud!
"Despite their futuristic reputation compared to trains, light rail, or even buses, they tend to be over-engineered and gimmicky and, in the long run, less efficient at their job compared to more conventional forms of public transit."
*Elon Musk:* "Hold my beer..."
Actually, worst case scenarios for standard points include...
• Derailment
• the train attempting to go both ways at the same time
• breaking the points if ran over while pointing the wrong way. (because they position lock to avoid the above)
I know I was literally thinking there have been so many railway accidents involving points lol
would also add...
• Going over the points too fast ect
@@adeerdoes Not only that, but the modern hanging box girder style monorail system uses a style of points that are actually SIMPLER than standard points, as they use a single, shorter swinging arm, rather than 2. Though I'm sure access for maintenence is an issue.
@@abrr2000 But they still need to move the track support out of the way so that the car support can pass by.
@@tacet3045 Do you mean the entire track has to swing? if so that's not true of the "SAFEGE monorail" system. as the entire points mechanism is inside the box girder, and consists of one T shaped iron bar and a mechanism to push it from one side to the other.
@@adeerdoes Random related story: A couple of years ago there was an accident in Australia where a Vlocity DMU essentially slid down the Warrenheip Bank coming into the city of Ballarat due to extremely wet conditions/the locos sand running out before the bank, it blew through a set of heritage gates destroying them in the process and careened through the station where it went through the points from the main line to the platform 1 line at 100km/h (Points are rated for 40km/h maximum) where the commonly held view is that the only reason it didn't derail was thanks to the engines being mounted under the carriage, meaning Vlocities have about as low of a center of mass as a train can have.
Used the monorail all of twice between moving to Sydney in 1995 and the thing being shutdown. The second time was really just for the sake of riding it with someone from out of town. Sydney is one of those places that is vast by area but poorly joined up. So finding out there was a city-wide tram network ripped up more than 30 years before I moved here taught me what it means to grieve something you never knew!
The stations from the Sydney monorail are still there. They even have the advertisements from when it closed, it just has no track.
one wonders if a drop in replacement of a light rail line would work....
They have demolished City Centre (the one inside the building), Paddy’s Markets, Convention and Galeries Victoria stops over the years, the remainder of the network are still in limbo due to ownership disputes, and I have a feeling that the Harbourside stop is going next due to the imminent demolition/redevelopment of the mall.
Which just leaves Chinatown, World Square, Darling Park as the last standing stations on the former line that closed down in 2013.
Although Chongqing has stopped building monorails, another city in China, Wuhu, has finished two monorail lines in recent years. Judging by the passenger numbers, the new monorail is pretty successful there.
It's a successful tech showpiece, but the PRC has been really good at standardising conventional metro design
If you try well enough, you can design pretty much anything in a way you get high passenger numbers. Doesn’t mean it’s a somewhat bad idea anyways though. High pax throughput is mainly an issue of capacity per vehicle, boarding speed, frequency and demand for a to b in x time for y money. Few things in there are fundamentally incompatible with whatever you want to use to achieve that, but certain combinations stand out for running costs, reliability and/or flexibility. And typically, for high throughput at relatively low average speed, the modern metro train tends to be a favourite due to unbeatable space efficiency and pure running costs, with top marks in maintenance per passenger while often remaining around the same price point to start as other variants
It may be successful, but the question is if it has any compelling advantages over more conventional trains? The point with this video isn't that monorails are impossible, it's that they rarely have compelling advantages over normal trains, which work better in 99% of circumstances.
@@quillmaurer6563 It's cheaper and faster to build in an urban environment that require 100% elevated tracks.
@@thastayapongsak4422 I suppose I could see that - a short-distance isolated 100% elevated system, functioning as an automated people mover. Though most automated people movers are two-beam, I don't know if the single beam would be any cheaper.
In Asia Monorails are way more prevalent and they seem to function fine as low to medium capacity metros.
Especially the Mumbai Monorail
Because mostly they(their government) are dumb. For low capacity, just install trams and trolleybuses instead. For better capacity, just use standard elevated rail is better. Monorails are only viable when they need for tourism (Like Las Vegas or Tokyo Disneyland), higher gradient is really needed, or in rare case there are too many rail systems already exists there and don't want to cross betwee n them. Even that case jus using trolleybuses for light usage or elevated/underground standard gauge rail is generally more viable option.
I cannot understand why Asian people are hating trams and trolleybuses. Actually there's a tram planned to constructed where I live (somewhere in Asia) decades ago but People are really really dumb compared to European counterparts they think trams are transportation of the past so even today they are not constructed yet. Even newly developed district is planned in according to build a tram line so there are a huge promenade (for trams and pedestrian usage) across those districts, people are just dumb and they hate tram
@@surplusking2425 I think part of it is down to the generally higher population density of Asian cities compared to European ones. European cities of comparable density mainly use trams to complement a higher capacity subway and urban rail network. You might use it for short journeys around the city centre, but generally not for longer commutes. Where density is lower, trams are more likely to extend out into the suburbs where they act more like light rail, though in some cases the section in the city centre is underground like a subway (a so-called "pre metro").
Generally I think some cities in Asia do actually have the right ingredients for a monorail, which is a situation where there needs to be grade separation and high capacity, but you can't tunnel for whatever reason, and space is at such a premium that the profile of an elevated rail viaduct would be too wide.
They're pretty useful in specific isolated cases (airports and resorts), but when it comes to a serious mass transportation network, other options are much more appealing.
A niche solution for niche applications. Never been more, never constructed and planned to be more.
A Monorail is practical for applications where you need a monorail. If you don't need one, you can build one with the explicit mission to be an oddity and put it to good use, but you will spend less if you use iron rails.
Most airports and resorts use two-beam automated people movers. Monorails for such applications would be possible, but two-beam designs are far more common.
@@quillmaurer6563 Whilst correct, things like the Shanghai Maglev are pretty amazing (and a maglev is basically a monorail)
I'd love to see a followup video discussing the Wuppertal specifically, cause I know it gets brought up a lot when people hype up monorails. So I'd be curious to see what the specific circumstances were that just make the German monorail _work_ when in most scenarios it just isn't practical.
tom scott and the tim traveller have done good videos on it. it works there because its over the river. its a congested valley and thats the only space for a rail line.
Yes a must really, especially as it worked reliably for around 120 years. Real problems only started with modernization and new rolling stock in the last few years...which shows that Victorian or Edwardian era is just more durable and thus reliable!
One Big factor was that it needed to be elevated anyways, and that, by hanging on one standard rail, it is lighter and therefore needs less steel to build than a long viaduct, an by hanging it negated the problem of wide or tall track (and introducer the one of swinging into another carriage...)
The Wuppertal was a pearl string of towns in a relatively narrow valley. You could not have a tram because the room simply wasn't there; and you could not go down because of AFAIK high ground water. In the early 1900s, all rolling stock in Prussia was essentially hand-crafted, so you simply didn't lose that much money for a bespoke construction.
So it was built, and after the initial investment replacement stock or rail had a (small) serialised run.
The line along the Wupper river (Wuppertal - Wupper valley; before, it was distinct towns with the biggest being Elberfeld) doesn't need as frequent switching as a tram or tube network would need (like the Berlin Hochbahn, essentially an underground *above* ground).
In short, monorail could use all of its advantages in a situation that minimised the impracticalities.
I haven't seen any "hyping up" of monorails, just videos condemning monorails that nobody wants to construct anyways as an example of the worst engineering since time began. Wuppertal is mentioned because it is a working example of the exact specific situation monorail has been the best solution at construction and still is so good a solution that replacing it would be ineconomic, and may even reduce capacity.
If you want a monorail where rail is possible, safe the hassle and build light rail. If you cannot build light rail, then monorail may be, depending on the specific situation, a viable alternative.
Busses, if you cannot build a tramway, aren't better than a monorail system because they travel on the road, which you generally want to relieve with an elevated public transportation system. Trolley Busses or street-running tram are an intermediate step if traffic doesn't justify building a tram or if you want to build a tram incrementally, meaning first the catenary and routing, then putting in the rails at a later date when you have the funds.
Simply because standard monorail didn't exist yet at that time.
Once modern, standard monorail become apparent, suspended monorail no longer have its merit. Heck, even Walt Disney itself said that suspended monorail was suck even just for gadgetbahn
I think the Wuppertal monorail is the only exception to this, as it was mainly built above a river, using space which would otherwise have gone to waste - which in turn also saved multiple historical building from being bulldozed.
Also the Shanghai Airport Maglev
Check out the Chongqing monorail, and the Kuala Lumpur monorail. The former has 492km of tracks, 262 stations, and 3 MILLION daily riders! Monorails are incredibly effective and PRACTICAL transport solutions, given the right setting.
I have to disagree. Monorails are a useful mode of transit where they are appropriate. If you're in an area in which you can't build underground transport, and you have to go elevated, then monorail should be part of your consideration matrix.
Could be used around North Tyneside in parts for sure to link up bits of the Metro and outlying parts to it/park & rides to it.
Even that cases just install standard gauge elevated rails OR just use trams and trolleybuses are OK.
Metro also can be built elevated.
@@masrimus1607 Sure, metro can be built elevated, but it's more expensive to do so because there's more infrastructure involved than just a 24 inch wide concrete beam.
@@murdelabop better than monorails for sure.
I remember the Sydney monorail. I was a youngster, we bought an unlimited ticket, and I spend a good hour or two just riding the line in circles. Ah, simple pleasures
Visit Seattle, Washington and enjoy a trip on ours. Built in 1962 for support of the Century 21 Exposition, it connected downtown with the Exposition grounds. It runs the same route today, though the downtown platform was relocated some years ago. The trip is a little less than a mile, and there is no stop. Great fun.
As expected, the video is making it too simple, reality is more complex.
Most bad monorail Systems were/are bad not because they are a monorail, but because they're route was designed badly and because of bad integration with the rest of the transit network.
There are several very successful monorails in the world that move thousands of people daily and which are well integrated
Sadly, people tend to ignore actual examples in order to keep their moronic opinions relevant
You can't look at these systems in isolation. There's a reason why monorail deployments are outnumbered by massive margin to other forms of mass transportation. Even in Japan & China, monorails are outnumbered massively by conventional rail.
@@bltzcstrnx Anti monorail lobbyists & unwillingness to try despite the technology being improved since conception thanks to Asian markets. The point here is that monorails are proven to work as a mode of public transport despite what people like you want to believe & there’s plenty of examples. Japan & China’s monorail networks are taken seriously as other methods of public transport & are continuing to open new services including one in Wuhan, but sure go claim they’re all doom for the cities that actually use them on a daily basis
@@JaimeValladares00 why don't you take a look at those countries you said. A handful of monorail lines compared to thousands of kilometers of conventional rail. If the monorail was so successful, they would be the majority. Osaka Monorail is 28 kilometers long, compared to Osaka Metro at 130 kilometers. Tokyo Monorail is 18 kilometers long, while Tokyo Metro is 195 kilometers. Chongqing monorail only makes up line 2 & 3, about 97 kilometers, this is against their 524 kilometers of conventional metro.
@@bltzcstrnx The needs for these systems are adequate for the area that suits them best, like any other transport. I’m not saying monorails should replace all modes of transport. The point here is that monorails shouldn’t be dismissed as they do work for places that would benefit from them best such as airports & inner city transport through districts or neighborhoods
monorail is perfectly working fine in Singapore, Malaysia and Mumbai. It's better option over busses and trams. The main purpose of monorails is to decongest busy traffic and it does that job. Trams and buses add up to traffic, why monorail offload that traffic. And given how cities are slowly getting gripped in traffic, monorail's benefits outweighs it's cons. Actually a better comparison would be with metro/subway system.
Nah, they're not working fine. Mostly used in tourist areas only for the wow effect. Other than that better to just build LRT or use a bus network.
@@bltzcstrnx Line 15 in Sao Paolo, Brazil is designed to carry 48,000 people per hour per direction & is successful, but sure stay ignorant
@@JaimeValladares00at least not ignorant enough to look at the monorail as a whole system instead of individual lines. Sao Paolo Line 15 carried around 100 thousand passengers per day in a system that move 4 million in a single day. With the length of 15 kilometers out of the total 104 kilometers. In which the majority are conventional metro.
@@bltzcstrnx Your point is? We were talking about capacity here, don’t deflect. Regardless of what you think cities use monorails for uses that best fit them & has proven to work for said uses such as the one in São Paulo & is expanding another line to include monorail, line 17 which would hold up to over 200 thousand people. Look at the recent project within greater Cargo & Shinkansen in Japan, both capable of carrying large amounts of people within single lines. Monorails can be used alongside metros, who says they couldn’t? To dismiss monorails as a whole despite there being actual monorail systems being used around the world is ignorant which is a word that describes you best
Sao Paulo's monorail has a suspense safety path along the rails for the safety of users and repair.
The system has the large passenger's capacity in the world, with each train carrying 1292 passengers.
So... flying cars were a disappointment and now monorails. So what's next, no Star Trek style teleportation?
Monorails at least are useful in niche applications (they get used elsewhere more often due to being 'cool' and how rare those niches actually are, but that's a different matter)
Probably for the best that Transporters aren't feasible. You know the old Star Trek Transporter Problem; you're basically being killed each time.
The Sydney system was quite odd compared to other von-roll systems around the world. It tried to be an automated people mover but unfortunately the technology wasn’t there at the time for the trains to run automatically. Also of note is that the von-roll mk2 and mk3 systems were only really used as theme park transport with Sydney, merry hill and an airport line in the USA as systems with public transport in mind.
And the Merry Hill one has been gone a while. Even the track has gone now. What did Butlins use at Minehead?
And yet it was operated with a driver until the complete end of the monorail back in 30th June 2013, the drivers car was completely inaccessible to the passengers.
The Brisbane Expo '88 had a Von Roll monorail too. It also had the only Von Roll chairlift ever installed in Australia, the hundreds of chairlifts at their ski resorts were all made by other companies.
As I understood it, it was designed to be and could run fully automated,
but a political decision was made to use drivers onboard, after a couple of operational breakdowns early in its life.
Disney's Monorail system is really fun. Capacity kinda sucks at the end of the day when parks are emptying en masse, but during the day, they are still a lot of fun. Also everyone knows the iconic "Please stand clear of the doors. Por favor, manténgase alejado de las puertas."
Those are just magical
Keep in mind, though, that the Disney Monorail System carries a many daily riders as some heavy rail systems.
I cross the bridge at 0:12 to get to work every day, and the old monorail station is still there. The Sydney monorail was an absolute gimmick that pretty much no one used for the reasons laid out in this video, but we still mention how we miss it. We eventually got a lightrail.
Yeah, it's weird how they have all of the old Stations sitting around, they have one at both side of the bridge in darling harbour and its kinda an eyesore without the monorail itself
I think more tourists used it , rather than people who went into the city. The tram line should have been built partly underground, as it is much harder to get around the city now.
This stigma we put on monorail transit really began with that one episode of The Simpsons, where they sing that stupid monorail song. No one ever had a bad opinion of monorails before that Simpsons episode
The concept of monorail passenger transport had been debunked LONG before The Simpsons.
That episode actually REMINDED people that Monorail promoters HAD existed, years back.
Goodness, I didn't realize monorail had that many problems. I mean not that I go around thinking about it much but still.
Thanks again for an informative video!
Some points presented in this video are valid for outdated monorail system. Newer system being built currently are cheaper and require less space than normal train system, while having the same capacity and speed. Bangkok is currently building 60 kilometers of monorail, and it's scheduled to open next year. The monorail also has steeper climb, and that made going up and around existing elevated roads and rails easier.
Well, the fact that they take less space off the ground can be a good point for cities, and possibly cheaper to build than some metros that can now be very hard to expend, especially in the center of a city...
I'm amazed no-one's mentioning the Chongqing monorail. 492km of tracks, 262 stations, 3 MILLION daily riders. Operational for nearly 2 decades. Monorails are perfect for the city's very hilly terrain. The channel seems to have a high production value, but the thesis of this particular video seems to have come before the research. Monorails (and elevated rail systems in general) are ubiquitous, effective, and awesome modes of transport with the right conditions.
Of the almost 500 km of Chongqing rail transit, only 95 km are monorails (line 2 and 3). All the other lines are heavy rail metro system.
Furthermore the monorails were the first two lines to be inaugurated between 2006 and 2011, after that 6 more lines were added, all of them standard metro systems.
It seems that even the hilly city of Chongquing decided that monorails are not that useful and went all in with the rail
Even with countless cities opting for conventional rail. Monorail or futurist fans still can't let go. I guess it does have a very strong wow effect.
Well, monorails and AGT systems are legitimate alternatives to conventional rail in certain settings, and they should be seen as such. They are able to navigate steep inclines, they fill in the gap between buses and high-capacity conventional rail, and are also far quieter without expensive sound-dampening construction. The futurism may be a wow factor, but the form follows function, or else the many such lines (across Asian cities in particular) will lose money and cease to operate. @@bltzcstrnx
@@AndreaPacini-bv1zd Line 3 have a ridership of around 1M per day, wdym of not "useful"? And they are useful because any other rail type don't work where those lines go.
An episode about monorails without a rhyme? Egads dude that’s a true crime!
I used the People Mover in Detroit and found it immensely fascinating. Is it practical? Absolutely not. Was it useful for me? Not entirely. Was it virtually useless? Yep, especially since it goes one way
But it was neat, and yeah it looked great plus it's automated and has been since it opened in **1987**
Are they worth it? Not outside of an airport
Of all the upsides you mentioned, the lack of derailing is the only actual upside. Many trains in the Paris Metro run on rubber wheels as well. And you can have standard trains on raised tracks as well, but unlike monorails they don't HAVE to be.
1:50 - The two reasons that monorail tracks, including supporting columns, are large is not the vehicle weight, but 1) the need to make the system safe from damage, e.g., impact from a large truck, and 2) the need to guarantee that the track remains in alignment. Monorail supports are not driven in from the surface like a telephone pole, but built up from bedrock or driven piles like a bridge support.
If the monorail can be attached to buildings, it can be truly lightweight. However, that tends to only happen when the monorail builder owns the buildings, such as at Disneyworld. Most building owners don't want tracks attached to their buildings, even when you pay them.
love how you literally made up some problems in this one. excellent work.
"If you try and use them for what they're not designed for (small scale, 2-way transport over infrastructure/bad land) they really suck compared to things which were literally designed for long-haul, high mass transport."
Growing up in Sydney, I had fond memories of riding the monorail with my dad or my grandma - but it was always if we had a day out to the city and it was a fun little thing to do as a kid.
It wasn’t useful as an actual means of public transport for commuters.
It was a one-direction loop around parts of the city and Darling Harbour, super expensive for a ticket - and it didn’t really connect any one location with any other location in a direct way. It was circuitous and it was slow.
So yeah, while I remember it fondly for nostalgia reasons - it was more of a fun-ride through the middle of the city - and great for tourists with kids to do something a little bit quirky and unique.
The Wittenberg monorail that appears on many of these pictures was neccessitated by the very tight valley in which the city is located. Its design allows it to “fly” over the river in a tight valley where there was no more soace for additional infrastructure. And while being a hanging monorail, it uses many standard railway parts for easier maintenance.
In Bangkok they are building new monorail lines.
There it make kind sense. Because of space restrictions and the danger of flooding
trains have to be elevated anyway. (On the one Subway line you all ways have to make
few steps up before you can go downstairs, so the subway don't run to easy full of water.)
The advantage of the monorail is that they are less of a eyesore then existing skytrains.
The Sydney monorail also had a big disadvantage of going from nowhere to nowhere. If it had gone through Circular Quay as originally planned, it would have been at least useful.
On the other hand the Tokyo Monorail is an important link to Haneda airport, although the terminus at Hamamatsucho is not convenient.
Yeah, which is why the Haneda monorail was originally intended to terminate either at Shinbashi or Tokyo station. It was shortened to end at Hamamatsucho because the cost overruns on the Tokaido shinkansen left them short of money for other projects. There were periodic attempts to extend it, but none of them came to anything and since there are now plans by JR to build the Haneda airport access line as conventional rail, it will probably never happen.
7:16
This is the thing that bugs me with most of the current passenger monorails. The whole point behind perusing monorail designs was that monorails had the potential to be more resource efficient than standard rails. Monorails were supposed to be cheaper to build than standard rail while keeping the energy efficiency of steel wheels on steel track.
However, current passenger monorails incorporate none of this.
Current monorails have rubber wheels on a concrete track.
In my mind, that's not a monorail. That's just an over glorified bus running on a concrete track.
if we consult Gareth Dennis' #NotAMetro sorter then it does indeed get classified as a Bus
Nice Video! Maybe you could do something like this with the German Plans of 3m- Breitspur Trains and why this was never a good Idea?
You DO realise that the GWR began in the 2135mm gauge, because of advantages of a broad gauge for efficiency and smoothness of operations?
In Europe, the US solution to stack shipping containers into 2 floors doesn't work (catenary). For highly frequented lines that are overloaded by today, a broad gauge line could bring the throughput needed in the near future.
That is, if you don't want to have rail as an ugly duckling besides unecological road hauling.
@@enysuntra1347 - The 2135mm Gauge of the GWR may have been an innovative idea in the early days when there was no widespread standard track, sure! But why people only stopped building them around 1900, although the 1435 mm had long been standard is hard for me to understand.
A Broad Gauge CAN'T be more efficient nowadays because you have to build the completely new infrastructure. People are mostly upset if there is only a thinking of additional tracks "near their buildings".
And you would need much more space for this.
You are absolutly right about "More Goods to the Rails", but I think more standard rails should do it also.
@@KlingelTimi. You see your problem there? "you have to build the infrastructure anew". Exactly what you need to do anyways with over-encumbered freight rail. So just broaden the load profile, build 3 rails instead of 2 (left rail, Stevenson rail, right rail) - and presto! You have a line where Stevenson (1435) cars still can travel, but where you can have 2 containers where otherwise only 1 fit, AND have a catenary.
We won't see a switch to Brunel gauge; however, as a solution for especially high-capacity lines like Hamburg-Hannover or (insert name of port)-(insert name of major inland marshalling yard distributing freight coming from aforementioned port), it can be a solution to be considered.
The Breitspurbahn had some ludicrous PR (but what you see in "artist's renditions" in the 1900-1945s and how it looked like in the end were 2 different things altogether - I know, hard to imagine in our time where "artist's renditions" only show realistic and factually well researched possibilities...), but building a line connecting the major population and industry hubs in Middle Europe (and ONLY them) with a round-course line CAN be a good idea.
Of course, it was over-engineered. That happens when your engineers have the option to work in a well-protected planning bureau and their alternative is to work in a priority bomb target where all the time, something goes wrong and a scapegoat is needed and the last Workplace Safety regulation is reputed to have been sighted half a decade ago - or directly to "re-gauging" on the eastern front.
But some of the people tasked with executing the project seem to have indeed known what they were talking about. It's fascinating topics - not the ludicrous "artist's rendition" locomotives, but especially the line planning - that should be discussed in an in-depth video, not some "why xyz was a bad idea from the start and all those people who had the idea did not have valid reasons why they thought this was the right idea, but were morons much stupider than the dear viewer"-clickbait.
Addendum: While Feldbahn (600mm) has fallen out of use, we still have Schmalspur (750mm) and Meterspur (guess!)/C.A.P.-Spur (1067mm) gauges besides Stevenson gauge. It is true many light rail lines switched to Stevenson gauge, but you will still find kilometres upon kilometres of narrow gauge railways where happy trains are chugging along doing a perfectly adequate job. Standardisation and economy of scale is important, but not that important that all lines have to be converted to 1435mm, up to and including your childrens' garden railway.
A little disheartening. One of the coolest thoughts about hanging mono-rails I got watching them in an anime once was that it possibly dramatically reduces suicides compared to other railed and subway transportation.
I remember when the Sydney monorail closed, but I didn't realize it's been ten years. However, while the rails and trains are long gone, I think there are still some supports and even a couple of stations still "hanging around".
Yeah, there are at least 3 stops that I have seen myself recently, all 3 being around darling harbour. The harbourside is looking likely to go with the redevelopment going on. It really is a bit of an eyesore seeing an abandoned station
The best examples of monorails are in Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook. Don't believe me? You should. After all, the monorail sure did put them on the map!
All true, but the one in Wuppertal, above the river, is an efficient use of space.
funny how one of the key advantages of them, the elevated tracks, is easily replicated on normal rail as well.
Steeper gradients still need extra effort but not like it's impossible either. I imagine the cost of the elevated track for normal rail cars would be quite comparable to monorail tracks, if not maybe cheaper.
It's entirely possible to have rubber tired trains too, for extra grip. Some lines on the Paris metro, to name one.
@@captainufo4587 and rack rails are a thing too. Both have enough down sides that you really shouldn't use them unless they're actually needed though.
It’s not just the elevation of the monorail tracks that give them an advantage. They also have a much smaller visual impact and don’t block as much sunlight as raised regular rail systems.
@@captainufo4587 bad idea. You lose the huge economic advantage of the low friction.
That was one thing I felt the video didn't explain well. Conventional rail can be elevated just as easily as monorail, making the avoidance of other traffic and ability to install it above other infrastructure not an advantage of monorails. However monorail beams block less light to the street below than conventional tracks, the street below an elevated train (most famously Chicago's "L") feels almost like driving in a tunnel, sort of dreary. For resort areas, such as Las Vegas, this would be an even bigger consideration. As far as I can think of, this is the one and only advantage of monorails over more conventional designs except in very unusual niche applications such as the industrial/mountain monorails mentioned at the end of the video.
The only "monorail" I will support is the Ewing System that was used in the Patiala State Monorail Tramway...
I guess that some of these drawbacks were only realised in practice.
How do you feel about Hyperloop? I feel that most of the drawbacks to monorail systems apply even stronger to the Hyperloop concept - which to me sounds completely unviable for these reasons, despite all the hype that's looped around it.
Hyperloop, the Scam that is worse and overpriced than planes or Highspped Trains, only invented by a Scamster to sell Cars and therefore in a typical american Tradition
i think only the Boring Company is worse ... and more stupid
Hyperloop is vaporware, and has too many variants to assess properly anyway (air hover, maglev, regular track, rubber tyres; single pod or multi pod train; exactly how depressurised are the tubes going to be; single-route or a switched network; freight or passengers; etc)
Elon Musk admitted he only said he would build the hyperloop so California wouldn't build high speed rail and leave everyone stuck driving cars
It's still made more sense to use Rollercoaster as suspended monorail rather than realizing hyperloop concept.
Half way through the video, I was like "Is that Black Mesa music I hear?" Good choice, by the way.
I believe that's the theme from "On a Rail" the level where you ride around on an underground monorail system...
This is pretty much the same problem with maglev trains plus the added issues of them needing to be almost perfectly straight to get the speed benefit.
I work track maintenance on the railways. Any repairs we do on them are pretty simple in contrast to monorails
I kind of wonder if you could have a third middle rail be your maglev system so you could use converted conventional trains. It wouldn't be as fast as the pure mono railed maglevs but as long as its roughly the same speed and cheaper to run (or environmentally more friendly if that is more important than cost) then it would be a good upgrade without requiring radical amounts of contraction or new maintence equipment.
@@Hybris51129 no. That wouldn't be possible.
Maglev works by using magnetic repulsion against the track and train.
So say the track is a north magnet and the train is a north magnet. It uses the magnetic field to lift the train off the track and it floats. The "track" is then more of a trench to keep the train in line and something then pushes the train to get it moving and the speed comes from the fact there is little to no friction between the track and train.
If you were to add a third magnetic rail to normal rails it wouldn't work because the magnet has to span the whole width of the train to be able to lift it off the ground. So the third rail wouldn't be strong enough.
Then the wheels would be lifted off the rails and there would be nothing to guide the train along. So you would end up with more derailments.
@@TenShine1productions Ok I was thinking that the third rail would be a line of alternating magnets that would push/pull the engine as it rode on the rails instead of actual true levitation.
Its been awhile since I looked at a cut away of a maglev system.
@@Hybris51129 you still wouldn't get the speed of maglev.
You might as well keep the third rail electric like current third rail track
I was thinking while watching this that all of these points also apply to HSR vs Hyperloop. Rail is so much easier to take apart and fix.
Having lived in Shelbyville all my life, the monorail is absolutely vital to our town.
I heard of monorails in Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, but never in Shelbyville. When did that open?
@@svenlakemeier Classic Shelbyville, always following in Springfield's shadow.
Now have that song from the Simpsons stuck in my head!
There was a Monorail in Rhyl, along the promenade, built in the 1980's, but did not last long. It was a short distance, which was quicker to walk, than taking the Monorail. It was also supposed to be extended, but not enough people were using it to be worth extending.
The other problem they had was that the track looped round at each end, but apparently the trains could not go round the corners, and there was nowhere to store them in bad weather. It only lasted about a year.
There is no evidence that a Monorail has ever existed in Rhyl now, and most people will probably not remember it having been there.
I feel you will get two hundred comments on Simpson reference episode
Monorail
Monorail
Mono ...
Cool episode.
The last part will actually help me with my city design, because my current plan was basically mining carts on rails with chains, but the dual rail limitations were in place, I didn’t even think monorail
There's a Cable Liner system, which may as well be a monorail, at Toronto Pearson international called the Terminal Link. It serves as a connector between Terminal 1, Terminal 3, and the parking garages. The reason it works particularly well is because it's solely a people mover over a short distance, and is used to not interfere with the rail system and the busy roads surrounding the airport. Beyond that, it doesn't serve much of a good purpose, hence why the Union-Pearson train line exists.
While I agree with the points about the rail itself, I disagree with the idea that a raised rail is inherently worse. You can easily make a walkway along it for emergencies, and the space savings and traffic reduction in crowded areas are worth the trade-off of trickier maintenance. Portland has a lightrail that is mostly street level and it very often gets stuck in traffic, meanwhile Seattle has one that is mostly raised or underground and it's almost always on time (and a more pleasant experience). Monorails might still be good for increased traction (although I bet you could just as easily make some kind of cogged track system for hills with normal rail), and Maglev type monorails are probably best for really high speed trains (like the 300mph kind)
Aren't some of these drawbacks also drawbacks of any other type of 'rail' such as Maglev and hyperloop?
Yes because maglev and hyperloop are basically monorails
At least for maglev it has speed, and is in service. Musk's Hyperloop is non-existent.
Hyperloop would be even worse, you are not just stuck on an elevated alligment but also inside a huge vacuum tube.
Let's say you have a fire on a pod.
1. First you have to get to a full stop at 1200kph (750mph). Including all following pods.
Than you have to isolate the section of track from the rest. De-vacuum the tube.
But you shouldn't use any gas-mixture containing oxygen for it, it would accelerate the fire.
Meaning along the whole tube you wound needed tanks to store a non flammable gas to fill the tubes in case of a fire.
Now the fire department has to use a torch to open up the tube, carrying their own oxygen and oxygen for any survivor.
Kill the fire. And than they can evacuate.
I would assume this would take upwards of 1 hour to do.
By then most passager are burned to a crisp.
Now because the tube is open, you also have to slowly open the barriers and drive every following pod slowly to the evacuation point or cut open every segment before the effected to also evacuate those passengers as well. And the track will be out of service for weeks.
At least a couple of the drawbacks mentioned applie to Regular rail if you elevate it
@@IamTheHolypumpkin Not to mention the scammy nonsense that is using pods in the first place. It's basically 'let's build all the infrastructure for a train... and then throw all the benefits of a train out the window and run what amount to vans, at best, on it'
In our city the monorail derailed and crashed. Turns out some crazy guy thought he could destroy the entire city with some crazy fear toxin. Luckily we have Batman.
The problem is that conventional systems like tram and metro have become too much expansive and periods of maintenance are much to short. So modern systems like monorail are the better choice and will find their way by time. And concerning maintenance: Maintaining a conventional system is not cheap as You say. It means demolish the whole track and build a new one every 10 to 12 years. A monorail or urban maglev track has a lifetime of 70 to 80 years.
Monorails do have their use-cases in public transport. The issue with most monorails built, is more political, than technical. They have simply been built to have a monorails, rather than having the need for a transit line, where a monorail would be the best fit.
Examples I would kindly ask you to take a good look at, are the Shonan Monorail in Enoshima, and the Schwebebahn from Wuppertal. Both have been built, as the need for a transit rout was present, and a Monorail was the best option.
Building a Monorail somewhere like New York City, would be a bad idea, since the terrain allows subways/metros to be more efficient. But if you take look at Wuppertal, neither the terrain nor traffic allows any other mode of transport, to be as efficient as the Schwebebahn. Its problems in recent years have to do with bad management, and not with the technology. It ran over 100 Years without any major issues, and had only 1 major incident till this day. I can't say the same from any tramway built anywhere in the world.
My point is, that as a mode of transport, monorails are not inherently better or worse, than "conventional" rails. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. But if you use one, where its advantages are meaningless, but its disadvantages are a big issue, then you (as the planer) are at fault, not the technology.
Honestly comparing Monorail to ground based trams/light rail doesn't seem very fair. Like ground based transit is always going to be cheaper, its just a question of whether it is even possible. Underground metro/elevated light rail vs. monorail is the better comparison.
Yup, and ground based transit will always create more traffic jams...
So, you get rid of one of the main benefits of rail transport (speed due to low friction) by adding rubber tyres and then get no other benefits in return
There are niche situations where various things that woud otherwise be gadgetbahns are actually appropriate, what those are varies with the type of system. Outside of those niches, they always loose to regular rail. Paris's rubber tyred metro has the same problem. Significant advantages in one specific niche (when the line has to be uncommonly steep while not really being able to saccrifice speed and acceleration as much as a rack rail would require), but outside of that you've got significantly increased track complexity, wheels that need replacing much more often (and manufacture and disposal are issues all their own), noise issues (whether rubber tyre or steel wheel is quieter depends on speed and track shape: turns too sharp for the gauge (and a couple of other things) and steel wheels will squeel, go too fast and a rubber tyre train line starts sounding an awful lot like a major road).
And on it goes.
Silent operation, ability to traverse steeper curves and more pronounced inclination angles (Tokyo et al). Less space taken BOTH on rails and stations (check Daegu, Cairo and Santiago de los Caballeros).
This video is HUGELY a misinformation piece.
@@rush4you I disagree. You clearly haven't watched the video, you fail to recognise the main issues with it like being raised of the ground, cost, maintenance, safety etc. The main point of being on rails is the speed due to the low amount of friction, like I said, and monorails don't have that advantage with rubber tyres. If you want something to climb a hill use a bus! Busses are cheaper, safer, more efficient and faster compared to a monorail in most circumstances. Most narrow gauge or light rail like trams can traverse as steep as a monorail can, and arguably regular trains are possibly quieter when built correctly
@@BrokenIET I just watched it 15 minutes ago, but thanks for the free attack.
Yes, monorails lose the friction advantage versus steel trains, there's no denying that. But they gain everything that I mentioned in return.
Now please show me an example of an elevated, silent steel train or one that can climb 13° angles. Again, elevated, because of course you can have less noisy subways, just pay $250M+ per kilometer.
And the comparison with buses is simply laughable, we are talking about high capacity, no interference with traffic systems that can carry 45000 pphpd.
Yep, it's basically the same reason hyperloops or maglev trains would be difficult to implement in places that aren't designed for it from the beginning. There's just no infrastructure for it.
Hyperloop's a con.
Maglev trains reappear, when air space is crammed (SCMaglev) or, hopefully, domestic flight is seen as undesirable because of its carbon dioxyde footprint (Transrapid) - which was exactly why Maglev was developed in the first place (after 1973 oil crisis, you needed electrically powered alternatives (stationary e-supply, not hyperbatteries or such ***) to stop domestic air travel getting to be a thing in the 1st place).
Infrastructure looks like a point - until you see that right now, freight and passenger travel block one another because politicians want them on the same track (as well as some HSTs, to make it ultimately inefficient). If you need a line for HST anyways, you can also build a Maglev line whose speed *starts* where HST speed becomes terminally expensive (300km/h, Transrapid was planned to incrementally accelerate to 700-750km/h). That way, you even safe loads of electricity (while catenary has to be all on or all off, MagLev is built so that only the block of the train and the one in front of it are switched on).
@@enysuntra1347 so, 700km/h can't be more efficient than 300km/h no matter how few parts of the electrical stuff needs to be powered. Also, to get the power where the single part will then be switched on, you still have to transport it there, which has the same electrical resistance problems of a catenary. Then you get to things like speeds above 300km/h not being viable in a lot of places because it takes too long to accelerate, and there you have it.
The time difference taking maglevs vs. conventional trains is probably a few minutes between most European cities
While I am not a "monorail enthusiast" per se, I do accept it as a viable modal option for certain environments.
That being said, there are a few errors, misconceptions, and/or omissions in your well-produced video:
1) Light Rail Vehicles weigh FAR more than monorail vehicles. They even weigh more than heavy rail metro vehicles, because LRVs are designed for crashworthiness (emerging triumphant in collisions with cars, trucks, and buses), which is a scenario that simply cannot happen with monorail or heavy rail designs. The "Light" in Light Rail and the "Heavy" in Heavy Rail do NOT refer to vehicle weight. They refer to passenger CAPACITY.
2) Your discussion of switching issues is not completely unfair, but elevated conventional rail is subject to exactly the same limitations. Rotary switches eliminate the "ends in thin air" issue. Beam replacement switches are quite fast -- the one at the MGM end of the line in Vegas took less than 12 seconds to fully traverse and lock (I timed it several times).
3) Discussing surface running of monorail is EXTREMELY disingenuous -- and you cannot be serious! Monorail was designed from the ground up (play on words absolutely intended) to be an ELEVATED mode. Also, you're omitting the extensive subsurface engineering that surface rail (especially street trams and LRT) requires.
4) Your point about repairing elevated beams also applies to elevated conventional track. You also exaggerate the cost and difficulty. Any company that can build, repair, or replace a bridge can easily build, repair, or replace a monorail beam. It's just reinforced concrete with a few cables and busbars strung alongside it.
5) Emergency egress. Don't pretend that's any different for other elevated rail modes! Modern supported monorail designs (like the LVM) feature emergency catwalks beside or between the beams. It's an FTA regulatory requirement. You're not wrong about suspended monorails, though, which is one of several reasons why I don't like those designs.
6) Japan has shown that monorails can be adapted to high-capacity transit applications. "Futuristic" is literally the WORST criterion in selecting a transit mode. The selection of monorail or any other mode should be driven by environmental factors, such as location (coastal cities with squishy soil, tight cities with smaller blocks, desiring stations within buildings, etc) or applications like overlays atop freeway medians. Like everything else in transit: It depends.
i've always been annoyed by the clipping in the intro audio
Kuala Lumpur's monorail is still running until now under Rapid KL. It is a great way to commute within the city itself.
Trans that are not grade separated are actually a nightmare for surface traffic, but they are the cheapest way to implement rails, which is why the are in the roads. It is not necessarily a "feature".
I wonder this is why the Simpson episode Marge versus the monorail is made because of the awareness of the problems of monorails.
Not even a little bit. It wasn't about the monorail, it was about the scammer. Why do people not get the joke?
The Alweg monorail here in Seattle is the fastest and easiest way to get downtown
Honestly, monorails should probably stick to private property. When I went to Disney World when I was younger, they had monorails for getting around the park and to the resorts at the place. Though I never considered farmland of some kind to have advantages with monorails due to weather
In Malaysia, there's one monorail system but it's pretty small compared to other train systems surrounding it in the same city. Perhaps the flaws are the reasons why it has such a small cars and the shortest rails
Kuala Lumpur? It's the only one I've ever used actually
@@oldskoolmusicnostalgia Yep, that's the one.
I can't accept the third point - lack of interoperability with existing networks. You can't drive trucks on train tracks, trains on roads, or airplanes on anything - complaining that monorails (built explicitly for passenger use) don't also have goods wagons is... not a significant point, and actually weakens the rest of the argument. Switches, maintenance, and inability to grade cross are already all strong points and this just seems almost fatuous by comparison.
WHY MONORAILS SUCK:
They don't. They are specialised solutions where rail was not an option. A monorail is a very practical solution for a problem where you need a monorail.
Wuppertal Schwebebahn could now be replaced by light rail, but that would be a waste of money to pull down a system that's perfectly adequate and rebuild another one that isn't really that much better. That's why the Schwebebahn stays where it is.
Have you heard of Vancouver's skytrain and I would be curious what your thoughts on it if it's better or worse than a monorail
Look man, I like trains as much as anyone, but there's no need to misinform your audience because of your North American/European centric worldview.
- There's no mystery in monorail track switching. In Chongquing and Tokyo it is done automatically and there has not been any incident or malfunction regarding that so far.
- The only fair comparison of monorails are to elevated metro lines because they are both elevated, fully separated from traffic, and have similar construction costs, anything else is absurd. Comparing monorails to trams is just laughable, so there goes 1/4 of your video. The elevated monorail-metro comparison, done fairly, would have revealed that monorails are quieter, can traverse steeper curves and elevations, and occupy less space, at the expense of maximum system capacity and maximum speed. So no, monorails aren't perfect, but they are not the crap you are saying about them, especially on 45000 pphpd capacity routes with little available space.
- Your safety "concerns" are also unfounded, one would think that Japan, the most seismically active country in the world, would have noticed if their monorails take longer to repair than their elevated Metros. The same with Malaysia, India or Thailand, who are also in the Pacific Rim of Fire. And the passengers being "trapped" in monorail cars without means to escape is solved as simply as installing lateral walkways. It has been done on Sao Paulo with no issues and preserving its aesthetic profile.
- About the lack of compatibility with rail systems. That's such a big issue in the wealthy Global North, isn't it? Well, it's irrelevant for us in the South, because in most cities where monorails are being built, bad planning due to neoliberal politics has prevented our cities from building trams, and we can't afford underground metros (and no, BRTs aren't a solution either, ask Bogotá). Sure, an underground metro may be the pinnacle of mass transit, but our countries just can't pay $250M+ per kilometer in order to build them. Or as in Peru, we don't have the expertise and legislation for building one, our underground Line 2 is stuck since 2014 with 0 stations working so far. And many of our main avenues don't have enough space for elevated metros, which do require more physical space.
- And the proof that you haven't done your research is precisely that: that according to you, no monorails are being built for mass transit today, lol. What about Bangkok, which has both elevated and underground metros, but it's also building two monorail lines as we speak? Or Cairo? Sao Paulo? Bahía? Santiago de los Caballeros? Panama? Liuzhou? Are those cities irrelevant because they are not inhabited by wealthy white people?
Cairo monorail is ...nearly finished.
I love that you were playing black mesa music, because all I could think about was the opening sequence of the game and how expensive their transit system was!
The only time I think monorails make sense is when you don't want to destroy a ton of infrastructure but need a transit system to go through densely populated or hilly areas. Its much cheaper to erect a single rail with singular pylons spaced regularly than it is to construct an entire elevated railway. But these situations are extremely niche so in 99% of cases a conventional tram makes much more sense.
'Because they NEED to be raised, they have a small footprint.'
This isn't even an upside, it's a side effect. Because you could just... raise a normal set of rails all the same?
on the flip side, the claim that regular rail's switches are safer and more eaisly repaired because they're on the ground is like ... 'but... elevated rail exists?'
@@laurencefraser I mean true but elevated rail still has solid ground making the height less of a hazard, whereas with monorails there is little to no infrastructure to stand on. Even if both have a height risk, the degrees are simply different.
It sounds like a niche technology, extremely useful in some specific situations but not practical everywhere.
That's EXACTLY what it is.
Jungle Jim's grocery store in Fairfield, Ohio has a non-functional monorail on display. It is from the now defunct Wild Animal Safari from King's Island amusement park.
I note that you haven't discussed Bangkoks monorail system. It's the easiest way to get around a huge city fast. I believe Singapore have one too. Built up cities like that couldn't have Australian style trams/light rail.
Thanks for bringing it up! It's been a while since I visited Bangkok and I couldn't remember if the Skytrain was a monorail or an elevated light rail system. It was very efficient though!
@@fxeditor1138 It's often difficult to distinguish monorails from two-rail elevated lines, because such lines are often disguised as monorails.
3:44 Ironic that *that* monorail line seems to be more effective than modern monorails.
Yeah because
it provides a safe area for our allies when the Germans start pulling up with their 7th ss panzer division
Regarding the part at the end about useful examples of monorails, I was wondering if you were going to comment on the Chongqing monorail, which I assume is an overall more sound engineering choice in light of the city's gradients.
Chongqing and Wuhu both have successful monorails in their metro systems
have a look at Melbournes Skyrail. They raised up a bunch of train lines like they were a monorail to eliminate the level crossings. The main benefit of a monorail without the disadvantages.
and there is an evac path beside the rails too.
Aha, very good points.
It makes monorails pretty hopeless in hindsight.
Though a somewhat spectacular tourist attraction in Wuppertal, for once.
The scene appeared to me of being stuck on, or even under, a monorail, 10 metres above ground. 'Help.'
ahhh... the Sydney monorail... that work out well... whereas the Melbourne tram network goes from strength to strength.....
The Tokyo monorail was cool, but the JR lines, and the Keikyu railway were better. Especially when the Keikyu railway (Tokyo/Kanagawa) ran Keisei Narita trains (Tokyo/Chiba).
Because of the heavy at-ground level traffic, monorail becomes the ideal alternative. You can cite as many as hundred reasons against monorail; still, you have to come to terms with the local conditions which entail monoral transit system.
I hate how monorails aren't practical because they look so damn cool, especially suspended monorails.
What do you mean? There's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six cart monorail!
It’s nightmare when the monorail stop on the way.I was locked up half a day on Tokyo monorail for Haneda airport
Watch out, you’ll offend Walt Disney!
First time I have heard that they are supposed to be "futuristic". Perhaps because I'm aware the idea has been around a long time. Conventional trains and trams can also be made to look snazzy, and usually are these days. Being raised off the ground is a non-issue. You can raise conventional rail off the gound too, and they often are. You forgot to mention that the overhead rail(s) make a hideous eyesore.
Monorails have been 'futuristic' for 200 years!
The Panama government is building a monorail. It will be the 3rd line of the Panama City METRO Train system. I believe this monorail is the best option due to the hilly terrain where the same will be built. For this to be a train or tram system, it would have required a lot of extra work and resources to flatten the terrain or perhaps to have quite a few tunnels added/built.
How can they be bad? They put Ogdenville, North Haverbrook and Brockway on the map!
I think, no.. wait, that's more a Shelbyville idea...
The argument isn't persuasive. Light rails are not comparable to monorails because they're slow and get stuck in traffic. I have used trams in Berlin, Hong Kong, Hamburg and various other cities, and they are fine for slow trips.
Monorails need to be compared with elevated railways that need a viaduct, and in that case, the monorail's advantages are less noise, smaller track profile and ability to be implemented in cities that have hills.
I also would like to know where people get their numbers when it comes to maintenance costs. A video that talks about maintenance costs without actually citing the figures from existing monorails and comparing them with existing elevated railways isn't very useful.
Loving the longer videos pal. Well made also