Should monorail replace passenger railroads?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Shou ld we invest in monorails for pasengers?

  • yes

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • no

    Votes: 32 91.4%
  • undecided

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Total voters
    35
So far monorails have only been used for things like airport shuttles, at theme parks, amusement rides, interconnectors, a handful of urban commuter lines, that sort of thing. And then there is super weird stuff like the aerotrain. There is a good reason there aren't more of them, but maybe that's for another discussion. But even assuming these systems are actually value for money, there has never been a monorail for long distance or even inter city rail lines.

If you mean something like hyperloop or maglev, maybe that's different. But monorail? No.

Furthermore, each system is incompatible and protected by patents so you basically you are locked in with a single supplier forever, if ever you want to extend or upgrade the system later.
 
So far monorails have only been used for things like airport shuttles, at theme parks, amusement rides, interconnectors, a handful of urban commuter lines, that sort of thing. And then there is super weird stuff like the aerotrain. There is a good reason there aren't more of them, but maybe that's for another discussion. But even assuming these systems are actually value for money, there has never been a monorail for long distance or even inter city rail lines.

If you mean something like hyperloop or maglev, maybe that's different. But monorail? No.

Furthermore, each system is incompatible and protected by patents so you basically you are locked in with a single supplier forever, if ever you want to extend or upgrade the system later.
interesting.
 
It is much cheaper to build on the ground where feasible. Conventional railroads can be built on the ground, or on elevated structures, or underground in tunnels with very few restrictions or alterations. Monorails have to be built up in the air.

Conventional railroads have the flexibility to handle freight or passengers. Outside of a few dense corridors, two or three trains a day is quite sufficient to handle passenger load in most of the United States (yes, one a day or less is NOT sufficient, IMHO). Can you picture investing in an elevated guideway between major metropolitan areas for only three trains a day (and no freight)?

The most heavily trafficked monorail system in the United States at present is at the Disney World resort. The six-car trains seat 20 passengers in each car (40 passengers can stand in the aisles), or 120 passengers total for the full train. A single Amfleet 1 car can seat 84 passengers, with superior comfort.

I'd much prefer to invest heavily in conventional rail. Actually, it's my (admittedly untested) opinion that if a per-seat equalization subsidy could be created to compensate for the heavy expenditures on behalf of highways and airlines then the rails could again become attractive to private investment and operation.
 
Gadgetbahnen

Catbus» Blog Archive » What’s a Gadgetbahn? (cat-bus.com)

Like for any gadgetbahn, the claim is that this new technology provides more speed, more comfort at lower cost.

But in the real world, these three aspects are always intricately connected and subject to tradeoffs – due to simple geometry and physics.

Want faster transportation? Then you need very straight tracks. Don’t have straight tracks but still want high speed? Then your trip will become a barf-ride, so less comfort. Want to build cheaply in an already existing highway median? Well the highway curves are made for cars going at 100km/h (62 mph), so your choices are:
  • slow down (less speed),
  • run inside the existing geometry at higher speed (less comfort),
  • straighten the curves (more expensive).
These problems will always come together. At the end of the day, you’re still pushing a metal can full of people at high speeds you can’t get out of issues of geometry and physics by changing where you put the wheels.

The technology of conventional railroads is time-tested, and through incremental improvements, it's capable of hosting passenger trains that can run up to 300 km/hr, although for most applications, such high speed is not needed. And though building new rail lines might seem to be expensive, I could imagine that building any sort of proprietary fixed guideway transport system will be even more expensive. It's far more efficient to continue using railroads, and in places where there's competition with freight traffic, just bite the bullet and spend the money to build parallel tracks, new longs, longer sidings, whatever is needed to keep the passenger and freight trains from interfering with each other.
 
Last edited:
It is much cheaper to build on the ground where feasible. Conventional railroads can be built on the ground, or on elevated structures, or underground in tunnels with very few restrictions or alterations. Monorails have to be built up in the air.

Conventional railroads have the flexibility to handle freight or passengers. Outside of a few dense corridors, two or three trains a day is quite sufficient to handle passenger load in most of the United States (yes, one a day or less is NOT sufficient, IMHO). Can you picture investing in an elevated guideway between major metropolitan areas for only three trains a day (and no freight)?

The most heavily trafficked monorail system in the United States at present is at the Disney World resort. The six-car trains seat 20 passengers in each car (40 passengers can stand in the aisles), or 120 passengers total for the full train. A single Amfleet 1 car can seat 84 passengers, with superior comfort.

I'd much prefer to invest heavily in conventional rail. Actually, it's my (admittedly untested) opinion that if a per-seat equalization subsidy could be created to compensate for the heavy expenditures on behalf of highways and airlines then the rails could again become attractive to private investment and operation.
Monorail would take up less space on the ground, and is cleaner. Huge upfront cost I admit but savings over decades.
 
It is much cheaper to build on the ground where feasible. Conventional railroads can be built on the ground, or on elevated structures, or underground in tunnels with very few restrictions or alterations. Monorails have to be built up in the air.

Conventional railroads have the flexibility to handle freight or passengers. Outside of a few dense corridors, two or three trains a day is quite sufficient to handle passenger load in most of the United States (yes, one a day or less is NOT sufficient, IMHO). Can you picture investing in an elevated guideway between major metropolitan areas for only three trains a day (and no freight)?

The most heavily trafficked monorail system in the United States at present is at the Disney World resort. The six-car trains seat 20 passengers in each car (40 passengers can stand in the aisles), or 120 passengers total for the full train. A single Amfleet 1 car can seat 84 passengers, with superior comfort.

I'd much prefer to invest heavily in conventional rail. Actually, it's my (admittedly untested) opinion that if a per-seat equalization subsidy could be created to compensate for the heavy expenditures on behalf of highways and airlines then the rails could again become attractive to private investment and operation.
:"

@AmtrakAlerts

City of New Orleans Train 58 which departed New Orleans (NOL) on 5/12 will terminate in Carbondale (CDL) due to a disabled freight train blocking the tracks.

5h

"

a monorail would glide over the freight.
 
:"
@AmtrakAlerts
City of New Orleans Train 58 which departed New Orleans (NOL) on 5/12 will terminate in Carbondale (CDL) due to a disabled freight train blocking the tracks.

5h

"

a monorail would glide over the freight.
You think monorails never break down? There's a reason Disney has a diesel-powered monorail "tow motor" at its resorts...
 
Monorail would take up less space on the ground, and is cleaner. Huge upfront cost I admit but savings over decades.
How is it "cleaner" than an electric powered train? And just because it runs on an elevated guideway, they still have to acquire the "space on the ground" for the right-of-way.
 
The land value argument really only applies in dense cities where there is no other space so you put the monorail in on a higher level .

but conventional rail can do that too . The metro in Chicago for example.

you wouldn’t do that in a rural area as elevated structures are costly to build and costly to maintain . And a monorail that’s sitting on the ground is just a nuisance , for example it’s more difficult to put in road crossings .
 
it just does. I prefer the kind Vegas uses and Disney World.
You do realize that the Disney monorails are limited by design to a top speed of 55 mph, but by policy are not allowed to exceed 40 mph (speed limit), don't you? Conventional rail trains can make 79 mph over track in at least halfway decent condition as long as ABS signaling or better is in place, or much more (90/125/150+) with signal improvements and more attention paid to maintenance and grade crossing separations.

Hey, there was a time in my life following a youthful visit to Disney World when I thought monorails were The Way To Go as well. But then I grew up.
 
Japan and South Korea managed to build them. High speed onestoo.
Well, you specifically referenced Disney. But okay; let's take Japan. Wikipedia shows that they currently have ten monorail lines in service. And, as far as I can see, they are all commuter service or airport transfer; I don't see a single intercity passenger transport monorail in the bunch (admittedly, I haven't looked that hard). Yet Japan has possibly the world's finest network of conventional and high speed rail lines linking all corners of the nation.

If monorails are so good, why aren't those proportions reversed?
 
Back
Top