I have often wanted to ask this question. Since Walt Disney has ahd a functional monorail since the 50’s, why hasn’t one been built elsewhere?
There are several monorails in operation.
One is at the zoo in MN.
Disney has well proven the reliability of the design. Perhaps they are not well suited for fast transit. Disney’s run on rubber tires and don’t go faster then 40 mph.
Seems well suited for short point to point rail service.
Sooblue
There is one in Seattle from downtown to the Science Center (WORLDS FAIR 1962 site) a distance of about a mile and one half.
Seattle voters also approved a referendum to build a monorail two connect the N.W. are Ballard and Downtown and on to the West to West Seattle.
Have ridden the one many times and I guess I don’t know why it never caught on but it is quite comofortable and efficent. If you go to the Seattle Web site and than transportation link you can get more info.
I think one problem with monorails is turnouts. If you look at Disney’s, the turnouts have rather large concrete beams that have to be moved at least 10 feet, maybe 15 or 20, to change routes. The only turnouts in the system are to get to the train sheds. They also carry power and signal information. These monorails run on very limited routes with no variations.
Check out the monorail in Wuppertal, Germany. It’s a suspended car, and has been running a lot longer than Disney’s.
…Disney has worn out sets and replaced them at Disney World. They must have traveled millions of miles by now…[Since 1971]. They really seem to be a good way to move masses of people. As a post above indicated the speed is not that fast but perhaps with a different suspension system the ride could be engineered to travel at greater speeds. Track could easily be constructed on Interstate ROW…and pretty much any place. Power is affixed to the side of the concrete support rail so no over head wiring needed. Sure seems like it would be useful in many locations…but this country seems reluctant to try new transportation possibilities.
John Armstrong, in The Railroad: What it Is and What it Does (a Simmons-Boardman book meant to educate real railroaders), argued that monorails are not economically competitive. The savings in having only one rail are more than offset by the costs of supporting and stabilizing the line.
I rode the Seattle monorail once but the neighborhood it runs through is one I’d rather walk through. There’s no shortage of high-tech experts out there trying to find a cure for walking. But I suspect many disabled people who can stand upright will prefer stepping on and off a Segway to getting in and out of a wheelchair or scooter with a seat.
I think monorails are realy more of a novelty, as compared to standard rail they are not more economic, efficient or faster, if they run on rubber they may be quieter and able to climb steeper grades.
I myself have never been a fan of monorails. To me trains are supposed to run on two rails (or three if you’re into toy trains). But I must admit that I do find some of the monorail steam trains interesting. (Yes, there is such a thing!) At the national railway museum of India in Delhi there is an operating steam train that uses one rail and has a large wheel coming out of the side that runs on a small cement “road” beside the track for balance. Go to www.e-z.net/~ddickens/monorail/ for more info. In an old 1930’s issue of Popular Mechanics I have there is a small writeup with a picture of a steam monorail in Ireland. It’s a very strange looking thing. The rail is suspended a few feet from the ground. The locomotive has two boilers side by side and the coaches are also divided in the middle. I don’t imagine these were too successful. I wonder if there were any other steam monorails out there?
Monorail… LOL. I think of that Simpsons episode everytime I hear that word.
Actually, there is an economical monorail in development. It’s called the maglev (magnetic levitation). The train doesn’t make contact with anything so there is no friction. The electromagnets can propel these trains to incredible speeds like a rocket. There’s a maglev ride called Superman (I think) at some theme park somewhere. It accelerates passengers straight out then straight up and falls backward back to the boarding platform. It’s shaped like an ‘L.’ The real ‘trains’ (i.e. practical trasportation) has yet to be built for commercial purposes. These trains could accelerate and travel faster than any Acela, Japan bullet train, or French TGV.
Going back to old monorails, there’s still a monorail track at the Oklahoma City State Fairgrounds. The grandstand that supports the boarding platform is scheduled for either demolition or renovation which may mean and end for the monorail. It’s nothing spectacular, but I have 2 pictures of this grandstand and monorail track at my website: http://www.kansaspacific.mysitespace.com/OKC.html scroll down to #9 and #10.
Even the maglev has to be questionable. It uses energy to become frictionless in the first place. If it is to travel equal or faster than the top speeds of TGV or the japanese Bullet trains than it must lie in the technolagy of sreamlining because at 200mph and up your pushing alot of air, the atmosphere at altitude zero is denser then at 10,000 feet and up. The Japan train now holds the record of about 354mph and the leading car is one long cone shape!! also the trailing car.
If the maglev was to travel in a vacume tube maybe you got something, but I see too many disadvantages to maglev compared to state of the art rail, and I beleive the Chinese are being ripped off by the Germans building their maglev in China. The Chinese should just keep their steam trains, it’s much better.
I couldn’t agree with you more! It’s a shame the Chinese government doesn’t think the same way.
To ironhorseman. When I left Germany to come home, a company called Kraus-Maffei were looking into a mag-lev system to conect Cologne and Dusseldorf. I don’t know if they were going to use attraction or repulsion method, perhaps one of the German readers can fill us in. The projected speeds are somewhere in the 300mph range. For these speeds to be reached will be fairly easy for the train rides on an air cushion.
To my understanding it is not about one or the other, attraction or repulsion, it uses both. The magnet pulls the train and at the same time the polarity is reversed giving the train a push. This happens perhaps a thousand or a million times a second, attracting-repulsing, pulling-pushing. Don’t ask me how they control speed
A funny thing, just hours aftering making my 1st post in this thread I saw a differnt rendering of a maglev train than what I was referring to. I was referring to one that looks more like a monorail. The other version I saw has kind of a duck-billed snout, if you will, the kind that I was not talking about.
Streamlining is only part of it. Of course it’s streamlined, what train isn’t? But the one I was referring to was not superstreamlined, like the duck-billed version. This American maglev looks rather plain. It’s shaped like a sleek intercity lightrail system, something like Portland Oregon’s for those of you familiar with that one, but it rides on an elevated track like a monorail.
I wish I could find a picture because it’s hard for me to write a decription of this the way I want it.
Yes, at 200mph you’re pushing a lot of air, but magnetic levitation makes it easier and cheaper to achive this speed at an acceleration rate faster than a rocket. Think of a conventional electric train. The pantograph makes contact with the overhead wire which creates friction. Th
…Maglev does date back to the early 20th century…and many examples of the concept are running now and have been for years…Disney’s at Tomorrow land in Disney World has been in use since about 1971.
I think that Las Vegas is planning a Monorail system to connect the casinos on the
Strip. If the tourists & Gamblers like it, who knows!
I hate to disagree with Mr Ironhorseman on the mag-lev systems as I usually find myself more in tune with his than not. The attraction and repulsion are two distinct and seperate systems. In the attraction system, the electro-magnet is in the actual vehicle so that the attraction forces are stronger the closer the electro-magnet is to the rail, this means the current must be constant to keep the air cushion between a 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch to balance the weight of the vehicle. However, due to the movement of the vehicle there is a possibility of the air gap decreasing and the attraction forces increasing causing the vehicle to become ‘glued’ to the rail making this system very unstable.
In the repulsion system however, there are two magnetic fields one caused by a coil and the other created by the vehicle travelling on the rails. In this case, the vehicle floats 1 to 4 inches above the track. This makes this system very stable because, if the vehicle rises, the force of repulsion decreases and the trains on weight returns to a position of equilibrium and if the train descends the force of repulsion increases and acts as a spring.
The problem putting this type of system into service is to find materials that will ensure electrical conductivity necessary to provide the substantial electromagnetic fields to levitate the tran over any distance.
Since metallurgy is improving every day, I’m sure someone will find the answer just as they did for the early jet engines.
Speed is only possible when track is smooth and straight. Whether high or surface mounted, rail(s) that bend or bump cause suspension (wheels etc.) systems to break. Look at the Amtrac recent experience on two rails! Most mag and mono rail systems have three working sides; i.e., left, right, and down. Thus I see them very similar to the Roman ruts. Even a duck feels R=V squared over 2g. Lindsay
Ironhorseman,
The maglevpa.com link is excellent. The interactive animated explanation in the Technology section is outstanding. Thanks
Jeff
…Wasn’t the recent failure of the Amtrak parts caused because of improperly designed brackets that supported the anchor for shock absorbers…Not track. I’m referring to the brand new Acela train sets…