# MISC | Monorails



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

*Why do people not like monorails?*

Seattle's uh, debate over the proposed monorail they are trying to build in that city has ignited some interesting debates over monorails. It seems there are a lot of people out there who do not like the idea of a monorail. When I ask why, People only seem to respond that they are not legitimate transportation systems.

Can someone give me a better idea what it is that people dislike so much about monorails?


----------



## Wisarut (Oct 1, 2003)

Ai Cloudship, Monorail hasa poor riding quality ...


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Wisarut said:


> Ai Cloudship, Monorail hasa poor riding quality ...


The monorail systems built by Hitachi are reported to have excellent riding quality.


----------



## superchan7 (Jan 21, 2004)

Maybe the ones in Japan have that ride quality. I've never heard of a smooth-riding monorail in the US. Maybe it is such that to the layman, monorail has the appeal of nonconformism, something unique and cool-looking that not many cities or countries have.

That's just about all that monorail has to offer here in the States.


----------



## Bitxofo (Feb 3, 2005)

Low capacity...


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

Hmmm, the old monorail here in Seattle, it is kinda bumpy because of the concentre beams have gaps between one other where the pillars are supported.
I don't know about the ride quality of the monorail in Las Vegas.


----------



## Globalizer (Jun 26, 2005)

IMO, they are kind of cheating transport systems, not legitimate to use one rail when you can use 2, only for aesthetical reasons.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

In my opinion I think Monorails just look ugly. I guess it reminds me more of a Disney Land type of thing rather than a really commuting option. I just like the idea of rail transportion better. Switching tracks seems like it would be easier and faster than monorail.


----------



## EdZed (Mar 29, 2005)

The monorail in Las Vegas imo is ok at best. Not high enough capacity and it is not very comfortable. Also there are so many better alternatives to monorail.


----------



## dewback (Jun 28, 2005)

I don't like monorails, they remind of the Disneyland one (that btw is getting quite neglected). I saw the Vegas monorail, but it looked limited to certain areas of casinos. The main problem with monorails is capacity (and perhaps speed).


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

Some monorail are pretty expensive so its $3 in Las Vegas for one trip (no fare zone)


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

^^ it's actually cheaper than riding the taxi around the strip, the monorail is much faster than the cars during a severe rush hour. The monorail in Seattle is $1.50 one way, $3 round trip. It is $1.50 round trip for deaf/disabled riders.


----------



## Urban Dave (Apr 18, 2004)

Monorail should be the same price as the underground. In fact, it's cheaper, isnt'? anyway, I love monorails.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

sequoias said:


> ^^ it's actually cheaper than riding the taxi around the strip, the monorail is much faster than the cars during a severe rush hour. The monorail in Seattle is $1.50 one way, $3 round trip. It is $1.50 round trip for deaf/disabled riders.


$1.50 for deaf people? :eek2: 

I think it's only for people that cannot walk.


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

Blink182 said:


> $1.50 for deaf people? :eek2:
> 
> I think it's only for people that cannot walk.


Don't forget that deaf and handicapped people do get discounts for bus passes, too.

Deaf people is in disabled category, so we get discounts time to time. Deaf cannot communicate with hearing people directly, though some can and some can't, we have to understand thru sign language or writing on tablet paper. Deaf people have harder time finding jobs in general, there's lot of discrimination. If you were deaf, you would understand it much better.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

sequoias said:


> Don't forget that deaf and handicapped people do get discounts for bus passes, too.
> 
> Deaf people is in disabled category, so we get discounts time to time. Deaf cannot communicate with hearing people directly, though some can and some can't, we have to understand thru sign language or writing on tablet paper. Deaf people have harder time finding jobs in general, there's lot of discrimination. If you were deaf, you would understand it much better.


I agree, I have hard time to find summer job. 

Is it's any deaf pride with "Anti-Discrimination"?


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

Blink182 said:


> I agree, I have hard time to find summer job.
> 
> Is it's any deaf pride with "Anti-Discrimination"?


Hardly there is deaf pride with no discrimination problems. I believe discrimination is almost everywhere. Lot of hearing people think deaf cannot do anything like hearing people can do, we sure can do lot of things. They just need an education to get better knowledge about deaf people that CAN do it at workplace, there are many devices avialable that enables deaf people to communicate at the workplace. 

back to the monorail subject (sorry got off point)


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

Sometimes, I wonder why Japan and Asia region is so crazy of monorails, while monorails in the US and Canada isn't popular. There may be a good reason for them. I guess we're spoiled about ride quality.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

I quite like monorails, but I can see why many others don't. They do seem to have more disadvantages than possitives.

* They usually have far less capacity than cheaper modes of transport, and certainly less that an underground metro

* To look attractive, they have to be a single track monorails, double tracks when in a dense urban area just block out far too much light and sky from city scapes. The problem with single track is that they are either only going in one direction, or even less capacity by sharing tracks.

* Monorails are generally slower than a proper metro.

* Monorails do cost more than anything other than a metro

On positives, a monorail can be a nice tourist gimick, especially if it is a single track, and of quality design.


----------



## Rupmulalauk (Jul 29, 2002)

I like monorails. I'm satisfied with the one in KL. It has high capacity(wider than the Bombardier LRTs), faster than LRTs and can tilt and handle meanders well. It's a bit noisy but still less noisy than heavy rail.


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

The Kuala Lumpur monorail photo archive, 13 pages worth of it with captions. It's worth to check it out! 

http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/KLspecial01.html


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

sequoias said:


> Hardly there is deaf pride with no discrimination problems. I believe discrimination is almost everywhere. Lot of hearing people think deaf cannot do anything like hearing people can do, we sure can do lot of things. They just need an education to get better knowledge about deaf people that CAN do it at workplace, there are many devices avialable that enables deaf people to communicate at the workplace.
> 
> back to the monorail subject (sorry got off point)


kay:

*Back to Monorail Subject*

Which is world that has longest distance of monorail?


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

Blink182 said:


> kay:
> 
> *Back to Monorail Subject*
> 
> Which is world that has longest distance of monorail?


Tokyo, I believe. They have the world's longest monorail line system.


----------



## Wisarut (Oct 1, 2003)

Sorry Tuan Baqthier, I have riden KL Monorail in 2004 and I got very bumpy ride ... Hope that KL Monorail has rectified this problem to improve riding quality though.


----------



## crazyjoeda (Sep 10, 2004)

Mono Rails are bad because there are so many better alternitaves. They are basicaly buses with sideways wheels riding a beam, that cost billions to build and way to much to maintain. They look nice an were once considered futuristic, ALRT and Light Rail is what should be built.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

Monorail is very highest techology transit in the world.


----------



## Guerrero (May 29, 2005)

Are there any examples of more than two car monorails. It would seem to me that all I have seen are two car trains. If they were longer then perhaps they would be more popular.


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

Guerrero said:


> Are there any examples of more than two car monorails. It would seem to me that all I have seen are two car trains. If they were longer then perhaps they would be more popular.


Google it and find more examples, there are mostly configured to 4 car trains or 2 car trains, common place around the world.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Usually it is run in either 2 or 4 car consists, as that allows for greater frequency. Disney's Bomabardier runs in 6 car consists. There is no real reason that you could not run longer than that, other than the shear inconvenince of such a long train.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Guerrero said:


> Are there any examples of more than two car monorails. It would seem to me that all I have seen are two car trains. If they were longer then perhaps they would be more popular.


The vast majority of monorail systems use trains with more than two cars. The following are a few examples:

Walt Disney World, Orlando









Tokyo Disneyland









Chongqing, China









Shonan, Japan









Las Vegas









Seattle (1962 World's Fair)









All the systems that use Hitachi Large Type trains feature four-car trains. These systems include Kitakyushu, Osaka, Tama, and Chongqing. Notable systems with two-car trains include Okinawa, Kuala Lumpur, the new Sentosa Island system in Singapore, and the system proposed by Cascadia Monorail for Seattle. The Okinawa trains are similar in design to the Tokyo Disneyland trains, which feature six-cars. The Tokyo-Haneda Airport line also uses six-car trains.

For further information, see the Monorail Society's website:
http://www.monorails.org/


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Cloudship said:


> Can someone give me a better idea what it is that people dislike so much about monorails?


In my experience, people find monorails much more interesting than other types of transit systems. That is why the Disney parks feature monorails rather than trams. That is why the Seattle Monorail Project has survived four public votes whereas the Seattle Central Link light rail system failed several times at the ballot box before finally passing.

The question that should be asked is under what conditions any given type of transit system makes most sense. In a densely populated urban environment such as Manhattan or central London, an underground system is necessary to provide the required capacity without undue environmental impact at the surface. In areas where the population density is less extreme and where pre-existing at-grade corridors are available, light rail can be very cost effective. In corridors where it is difficult to build an at-grade system due to the narrowness of the streets or the difficulty of the terrain, monorail should be considered.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

Wow. I am surprised at the answers that I got. I was expecting more issues such as it being too simplistic, or it was too big, or that it was a foreign idea. I did not expect people to believe it was low capacity or too unrealistic as a form of transportation.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

I don't think there is anything wrong with Monorail perse, they are very effective in Tokyo. It doesn't have subway but capacity but Seattle doesn't and probably never will need. 
I think it would be better thou, to keep with a NA proven technology ie SkyTrain like nearby Vancouver. It may not be ideal for all uses but it serves Vancouverites well and has proven itself to be fast, reliable, and safe. 
21km was just built in just 2 years for $1.1bilCDN so how Seattle's 21km line is costing more than twice as much is beyond me.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

Blink182 said:


> Monorail is very highest techology transit in the world.


I thought Maglev would be the highest tech.


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

^^ya, I think maglev has the highest tech mode of transportation since it has no wheels and it relys on magnets to float away, simple technology.


----------



## szehoong (Sep 11, 2002)

Justme said:


> I quite like monorails, but I can see why many others don't. They do seem to have more disadvantages than possitives.
> 
> * They usually have far less capacity than cheaper modes of transport, and certainly less that an underground metro
> 
> ...



KL Monorail proved all the above untrue 

- They have higher capacity than even Putraline and Starline if measured at the same length. This is because the train had a 3 metres interior space, similar to HK's MTR, Bkk's BTS and Singapore's MRT. The KL Monorail system could fit up to 12 trains  (Currently only 2 trains are used as it haven't near its full capacity yet)

- KL Monorail's double tracks had critics proven wrong. Although aesthetics are subjective, but nice plant and landscaping had successfully donned the otherwise boring road dividers in KL.

- KL Monorail's fastest operating speed are at 90kmph but it goes on the average of 60kmph as the stations are kinda close to each other. A proper metro too runs on a similar speed. 

- One of the main reason for the birth of Mtrans (the first Malaysian monorail manufacturer) and KL Monorail is because of the cost involved. It is cheaper to built and maintain than a regular metro. Plus it looks much nicer as the line had to zipped past a large part of KL's downtown and some trendy areas 

Actually I could best compare the monorail with other systems because KL had a few types of metros. One of it - Putraline is Bombardier's Mark II trains which is the same model as the ones they used for Vancouver's new Skytrain. The other is an Adtranz model (now Bombardier). The oldest is a commuter system which runs on regular rails as the intercities.

ANother plus factor for monorails is the view it offered if compared to underground systems. kay: 

But there are also an underground monorail system coming soon......watch out for Putrajaya's monorail


----------



## szehoong (Sep 11, 2002)

Wisarut said:


> Sorry Tuan Baqthier, I have riden KL Monorail in 2004 and I got very bumpy ride ... Hope that KL Monorail has rectified this problem to improve riding quality though.



All transit system using rubber wheels would have bumpier rides if compared to its steel wheel counterparts.


----------



## babystan03 (Jun 10, 2003)

szehoong said:


> KL Monorail proved all the above untrue
> 
> - They have higher capacity than even Putraline and Starline if measured at the same length. This is because the train had a 3 metres interior space, similar to HK's MTR, Bkk's BTS and Singapore's MRT. The KL Monorail system could fit up to 12 trains  (Currently only 2 trains are used as it haven't near its full capacity yet)
> 
> ...


Wah such comprehensive intro on KL transit system......


----------



## Shado (Apr 16, 2003)

szehoong said:


> All transit system using rubber wheels would have bumpier rides if compared to its steel wheel counterparts.


Rubber wheels would be smoother than steel wheels. What kind of logic makes you think otherwise? I think if you're using examples it's probably that the track on the rubber wheeled system was alot less even than that of the steel wheeled system.

Typically most people's experiences with Monorails come from various outdated themepark experiences. Personally I've not ridden on a monorail that compares with a metro rail system, but plenty that more than compare with any light rail system I've ridden in. 

 But some monorails are truely shocking. The monorail on Sentosa Island in Singapore comes to mind.


----------



## crazyjoeda (Sep 10, 2004)

From what I hear the Vegas Monorail is very bumpy.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Montreal's Metro, like Paris' are rubber wheeled and are much quieter than standard heavy rail.


----------



## superchan7 (Jan 21, 2004)

Vegas monorail uses the same incredibly out-of-date trains as those on the ORIGINAL Disneyland?! Not good...


----------



## EdZed (Mar 29, 2005)

crazyjoeda said:


> From what I hear the Vegas Monorail is very bumpy.


Yup, It feels like your driving over speed bumps in a car. I believe it is from the things that join the actual track together.


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

EdZed said:


> Yup, It feels like your driving over speed bumps in a car. I believe it is from the things that join the actual track together.


That's the nature of a monorail. The old Seattle monorail does the same thing, it would bounce on the gap between 2 beams supported on a pillar.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

So what if it was steel wheel? What if the beam had a rail (or maybe two) embedded in the top of the beam, and instead of pneumatic tires, the monorail ran on steel wheels? Would that make a difference to your perceptions?

By the way, the monorail vehicles are different than the original Alwegs from Disneyland. The WDW models were introiduced in the early 90's. As far as how advanced goes, let's face it, there's not a ton of complexity there to begin with. I guess it would amount to a simmilar estimation of how much more advanced are the busses of today versus those of 1960?


----------



## Palal (Sep 6, 2004)

The biggest problem w/ monorails: SAFETY!

How do you quickly evacuate the people from the train?


----------



## Substructure (Sep 10, 2004)

ssiguy2 said:


> Montreal's Metro, like Paris' are rubber wheeled and are much quieter than standard heavy rail.


Actually, only a few lines are rubber wheeled in Paris


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

Palal said:


> The biggest problem w/ monorails: SAFETY!
> 
> How do you quickly evacuate the people from the train?


u're wright, that's a good question. i've never thought about this


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Palal said:


> The biggest problem w/ monorails: SAFETY!
> 
> How do you quickly evacuate the people from the train?


The Las Vegas monorail features an emergency walkway between the guideway beams. The walkway can be seen in the follwing picture:










This same feature is required for the monorail planned for Seattle. The walkway can be seen between the guideway beams in the rendering below:










The Hitachi website shows the train-to-train emergency evacuation method that would be used if no walkway were present:

Trains on adjacent guideway beams:










Trains on the same guideway beam:










Train-to-Train emergency evacuation between trains on the same guideway beam requires both a through passage between cars and doors on the ends of the trains. Among Alweg (straddle beam) type monorails, only Hitachi trains feature both.

For more information, see the following websites:

http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/LVO1.html
http://www.elevated.org/project/reports/contract/
http://www.hitachi-rail.com/products/monorail/monorail_car/monorail_car2.html


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

ya, the guideway catwalk didn't exist on older monorail lines before 1965, I think. I'm not sure if the old Japanese monorail built in 1964 has the catwalk thing, (just in case). 

The old seattle monorail doesn't have the catwalk, there was a fire on one of the monorail last year and they had to transfer to the monorail next to it, but due to the smoke, some people had to be saved by the firemen with ladders going to the train. All people were saved, no one died and it was a relief. It's the first fire since the monorail first opened in 1962.


----------



## starbuc jupiter (Oct 3, 2004)

this statment was made a few days back...........


To look attractive, they have to be a single track monorails, double tracks when in a dense urban area just block out far too much light and sky from city scapes. The problem with single track is that they are either only going in one direction, or even less capacity by sharing tracks.


The alternitive in a situation where elevated tracks will be required is much more complicated and has alarger visual impact.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

AS far as evacuation goes, ideally they will do everything they can to get the monorail back to a safer location or a station.

In a dire emergency, when there really is no other option and they can't wait for emergency personell to respond with a ladder truck or like, there is the option (for those vehicles equipmed) to exit right out the front of the vehicle along the beam. Obviously not something you would want to do, but given no other alternatives. The beamway on most monorails is 2.5' to 3' wide. Again, that would be used only as a very last resort.

I have also seen proposals about equiping monorails with evacuation slides like aircraft have.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Don't dual direction monorails block as much sun as LRT that are elevated or elevated metro systems?


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

samsonyuen said:


> Don't dual direction monorails block as much sun as LRT that are elevated or elevated metro systems?


No.

The following figures are from the Hitachi website:

Elevated Conventional Rail:
















Monorail:
















The following are some key dimensions for the Central Link light rail system and proposed monorail in Seattle:

Parameter: Light Rail Viaduct / Dual Monorail Guideway
Guideway Width: 26' 6" (8.05m) / 2x31.5" (2x0.80m)
Typical Column Spacing: 100' - 120' (30.5m - 36.6m) / 100' - 120' (30.5m - 36.6m)
Typical Column Width: 5' 9" - 6' 3" (1.75m - 1.91m) / 4' 0" - 4' 9" (1.22m - 1.45m)

There would be some additional shading from the emergency walkway of the monorail; however, this is likely to be minor as the walkway will have a grating rather than a solid deck.


----------



## Frungy (Dec 16, 2004)

They're unpopular in the US because of the Simpsons.


----------



## szehoong (Sep 11, 2002)

Shado said:


> Rubber wheels would be smoother than steel wheels. What kind of logic makes you think otherwise? I think if you're using examples it's probably that the track on the rubber wheeled system was alot less even than that of the steel wheeled system.
> 
> Typically most people's experiences with Monorails come from various outdated themepark experiences. Personally I've not ridden on a monorail that compares with a metro rail system, but plenty that more than compare with any light rail system I've ridden in.
> 
> But some monorails are truely shocking. The monorail on Sentosa Island in Singapore comes to mind.



I came to that conclusion because I've ridden in quite a number of rubber-wheeled trains before notably:

- KL Monorail
- Sentosa Monorail, Singapore
- Sunway City Monorail, Malaysia
- Sydney Monorail
- Walt Disney World Monorail, Florida
- Genting Highlands Monorail, Malaysia
- KLIA Aerotrain
- Changi's Aerotrain
- Bukit Panjang LRT, Singapore
- Orlando International Airport Aerotrain

Most of the rubber-wheeled trains I've been on before are less than 10 years old so they are not antiquated. Based on my quite comprehensive list of rubber-wheeled trains, I would say that it is indeed bumpier if compared to standard steel-wheeled trains. I wouldn't wanna list don all the steel wheeled ones because I've ridden quite a lot of such systems around


----------



## szehoong (Sep 11, 2002)

samsonyuen said:


> Don't dual direction monorails block as much sun as LRT that are elevated or elevated metro systems?


The graphics by Hitachi posted by Greg_Christine is very true. Kuala Lumpur had two LRT systems that are elevated and also a dual tracked monorail (and all these systems are kinda near to each other), so it is evidently clear that the shadow cast are very minimal for monorail. kay:


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

*MONORAIL - The Official Thread*

*Scomi Engineering aims big with Sutra*
Tuesday November 27, 2007
TheStar











Having a closer look at the homegrown monorail called Sutra. Scomi Group 
Bhd CEO Shah Hakim Zain (right), Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Mohd 
Najib Tun Razak (centre) and Scomi chairman Tan Sri Asmat Kamaluddin after
the unveiling at Matrade Exhibition & Convention Centre,KL. 

KUALA LUMPUR: Scomi Engineering Bhd is participating in bids and proposals in countries like India, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt and South Korea, as well as Malaysia to offer its next generation monorail called *Scomi Urban Transit Rail Application (Sutra). * 

Scomi Engineering, which is part of the Scomi Group Bhd, is involved in energy and logistics engineering. 

The tendered projects were worth RM6bil, said group chief executive officer Shah Hakim Zain after the launch of Sutra yesterday. 

However, it was uncertain when the company would be able to secure its first order for Sutra as “the decision to purchase a monorail is a big decision for any government or city,” he said. 

In Vietnam, the group has been given six months to conduct a detailed study with the railway department in Hanoi for a monorail project in the city. 

Shah Hakim noted that there had been “huge interest” in monorail among Asian countries in the past eight to 12 months due to rapid urbanisation and high fuel cost. 

“Many don't realise that a six-car train can take away 17 buses from the road,” he said, adding that monorail could ease traffic congestion and pollution. 

Locally, Scomi Engineering had submitted a bid for the Penang monorail project. “There are four bidders for the Penang monorail, so we have 25% chance,” Shah Hakim said, adding that the monorail could cost US$20mil to US$30mil per km. 

Johor and Malacca were also suitable for monorail due to the population density while Kuala Lumpur could see extension from the current system, he said. 

However, Scomi Engineering had not submitted any plans to the Government for the extension in Kuala Lumpur, Shah Hakim said. 

“The Government is planning to take over the KL monorail and will decide what to do afterwards. Utilisation is very high for the KL monorail,” he added. 

Sutra complies with 50 international standards comprising safety, quality assurance, vehicle certification, reliability, availability and maintainability. 

Its enhanced features include composite body and interior panel, new bogie system and structure, mass transit components drive train, improved propulsion and control system, as well as regenerative and pneumatic brake system. It has 20%-23% more passenger capacity than the current KL monorail.


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

*Made-in-Malaysia monorail launched*
Tuesday November 27, 2007
By SHAHANAAZ HABIB
TheStar










Local pride: (From right) Scomi CEO Shah Hakim Zain, Najib and Asmat 
inspecting a Scomi monorail train at the Matrade convention centre in 
Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia has unveiled another first – its very own homegrown monorail. 

The Sutra monorail was developed by the Scomi Group over the last 12 months. 

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, who launched the new monorail yesterday, called it a significant milestone. 

“Today, Scomi has become one of only three major players in the world’s monorail business and has successfully developed a homegrown Malaysian monorail system ready to take on the world,” he said yesterday. 

Najib said it was a pleasure to note Scomi aggressively pursuing deals in countries like India, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt and South Korea collectively valued at RM6bil. 

He said regions like Eastern Europe and South America with emerging economies, too, were worth looking into because it was only a matter of time before they needed to consider investing in modern, relatively-inexpensive and practical modes of public transportation. 

At a press conference later, Najib said that Scomi, being a homegrown company with very high value local content, had an advantage and was in a “very competitive position” to be considered for monorail projects in the country. 

He said the global world was very competitive and it was essential to position Malaysia and Malaysian companies internationally. 

“We must build our reputation so that our name is synonymous with reliability, quality, technology and competitive pricing,” he said. 

Chairman of Scomi Group Bhd Tan Sri Asmat Kamaludin said total investment for the Sutra monorail was about RM35mil including for research, development and factory expansion. 

He said 30 personnel members including 23 engineers and experts in areas of structural and mechanical engineering, design, quality, safety and procurement worked on it for 12 months at Scomi’s manufacturing facility in Rawang which was equipped with its own 1km of monorail test track.


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

*Scomi bidding for RM6b monorail jobs*
By Adeline Paul Raj Published: 2007/11/26 
BusinessTimes













> At home, Scomi has proposed in its submitted bid in mid-November that its newly-launched Sutra be used for the Penang monorail project


SCOMI Group Bhd, which launched its second generation monorail yesterday, is bidding for some RM6 billion worth of monorail contracts at home and abroad, its top official said. 


Chairman Tan Sri Asmat Kamaluddin said the group is in discussions to supply monorails to countries such as India, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt and South Korea, through alliances. 

At home, it is vying for the Penang monorail project, in partnership with Malaysian Resources Corp Bhd and Penang Ports Sdn Bhd. 

Scomi submitted a bid in mid-November, proposing that its newly-launched Sutra (Scomi Urban Transit Rail Application) monorail be used, group chief executive officer Shah Hakim Zain said. 

"We understand there are four bidders (for the contract), so we have a 25 per cent chance," he said, speaking to reporters after the launch yesterday. 

He declined to reveal the value of the bid submitted, saying only that depending on the configuration, it could cost anything between RM67 million to RM100.5 million per kilometre. 

*Tenders for the 52km Penang monorail contract, reportedly worth RM1.6 billion, closed on November 14. *

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, who officiated the launch, was non-committal when asked when the Government would announce the winning bid. 

"I wouldn't know exactly when, we'll have to check," he said, declining also to reveal if it would be within this year, as widely anticipated. 

Najib said Scomi was in "a very competitive position" to secure jobs locally with the Sutra monorail given the fact that it was developed at home and had high local content. 

The Sutra monorail, on which Scomi invested RM35 million, was developed at its manufacturing plant in Rawang in just a year. 

The group wants to export the Sutra, especially to cities in Asia. In Malaysia, it also sees prospects for the monorail in densely populated cities such as Johor Baru, Batu Pahat and Malacca. 

"Our goal is to establish ourselves a strong position in the rail industry, a plan which we will execute over the next five years with our current and future products," Asmat said. 

According to Shah Hakim, there has been huge interest in monorails from Asian cities in the last eight to 12 months, mainly because of rapid urbanisation and the increasingly high cost of oil. 

Monorails, he said, are an effective transportation solution, with a set of six-car trains helping take off 17 buses from the road.


----------



## LimaLondon (Sep 16, 2007)

Monorails are so gimicky...they dont do a better job than normal trains, more expensive to build..look very nice though.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

LimaLondon said:


> Monorails are so gimicky...they dont do a better job than normal trains, more expensive to build..look very nice though.


In a dense urban area, where it is impossible to go underground, what would you rather have: Elevated LRT or a monorail?

Elevated LRT:










Monorail:


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

Anyways, nice to see this thread. Just ashame that KL's monorail line was poorly executed.


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

Electrify said:


> where it is impossible to go underground,


Part of the Putrajaya monorail (Onhold project)
Maybe the world's first!


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

Electrify said:


> Anyways, nice to see this thread. Just ashame that KL's monorail line was poorly executed.


The first Malaysian ambitious :cheers:


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

NEW SECOND GENERATION MONORAIL: Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak (right) and Scomi Group Bhd's chairman Tan Sri Asmat Kamaluddin (centre) inspecting the Sutra (Scomi Urban Transit Rail Application) at the launch November 26 2007.
BusinessTimes


----------



## Songoten2554 (Oct 19, 2006)

Monorails are better for the urban environment because they can fit well in tight spaces and also they stradle on a beam so its impossible to derail it

nice to see an Official Monorail thread finally we can discuss the monorails in the world and also new ones that are planned and being built


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

Electrify said:


> In a dense urban area, where it is impossible to go underground, what would you rather have: Elevated LRT or a monorail?
> 
> Elevated LRT:
> 
> ...


So you're comparing double track light rail to single track monorail? Great comparison, there. Also, those top speeds are really different.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

nazrey said:


> Part of the Putrajaya monorail (Onhold project)
> Maybe the world's first!


Well, there is a tunneled portion of the Shonan monorail that runs through a mountain. Safege monorails are the best for tunneling, since the running surfaces are inside the beam, it means the tunnels don't have to be widened for a straddling train.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

UrbanBen said:


> So you're comparing double track light rail to single track monorail? Great comparison, there. Also, those top speeds are really different.





















Better?


----------



## allurban (Apr 7, 2006)

Electrify said:


> Better?


not really...C'mon electrify, you're showing a picture of the Kelana Jaya LRT line at a station with a centre platform...two separate guideways...

you want to make a proper comparison to your first picture you'd have to show the normal LRT guideway....in between stations, not approaching stations.

Ill be honest...I havent got a problem with monorails but they arent as much of a solution as the builders claim...they are still in the "unproven" category for so many people....

And Scomi would have a lot more credibility if they could have improved on the KL monorail. They list themselves among the "3 builders" of monorail (metro-ish systems) in the world based on a single truncated line that was poorly executed? Im all for selling _sizzle_ but I still expect a steak, not a whopper!

I'll sit up and take notice when they extend that KL Monorail line from the Brickfields to the Midvalley neighbourhoods in KL..._and _fix up the screwup at KL Sentral Station.

Cheers, m


----------



## acela (Jun 24, 2004)

monorail is just a short term solution. Better use it at airport or theme park. For long term solution to solve the woes in KL it's better to have an S-bahn or an underground system since it is prove it can carry the masses.Basically the monorail in KL is a mess plus with the bad planning of routes and the projected passenger capacity.


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

Electrify said:


> Well, there is a tunneled portion of the Shonan monorail that runs through a mountain. Safege monorails are the best for tunneling, since the running surfaces are inside the beam, it means the tunnels don't have to be widened for a straddling train.


Safege monorails would require additional support structure in tunnels than a conventional design because you have to have the beam strong enough to support the monorail's weight from the ceiling in addition to earth forces inside the mountain or whatever overhead earth mass. Conventional designs put that dead weight straight into the ground below, simplifying the structure a great deal. This would make the Safege designs require notably higher tunnels.

How do you figure they wouldn't be as wide?

Also, the Tokyo Monorail has an underground portion around its airport terminus.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

TRZ said:


> Safege monorails would require additional support structure in tunnels than a conventional design because you have to have the beam strong enough to support the monorail's weight from the ceiling in addition to earth forces inside the mountain or whatever overhead earth mass. Conventional designs put that dead weight straight into the ground below, simplifying the structure a great deal. This would make the Safege designs require notably higher tunnels.
> 
> How do you figure they wouldn't be as wide?
> 
> Also, the Tokyo Monorail has an underground portion around its airport terminus.


I figured you could build the track "inside the tunnel" per se with a Safege monorail. With a straddle monorail, the tunnel would have to be wider to accommodate the train straddling the beam.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

allurban said:


> not really...C'mon electrify, you're showing a picture of the Kelana Jaya LRT line at a station with a centre platform...two separate guideways...
> 
> you want to make a proper comparison to your first picture you'd have to show the normal LRT guideway....in between stations, not approaching stations.
> 
> ...


How is this:










































Can't find too many examples of LRT elevated in dense areas, probably cause people wouldn't want something as blocky as this anywhere near their homes.


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

^^ That's ridiculous.

How about this? This is what Sound Transit is building, and it's a much smaller profile.

















I also notice you aren't showing any monorails... here's what Seattle's monorail would have looked like:










And Vegas:










They're functionally very similar in appearance unless you're right underneath.

Most of the reason you don't see elevated standard rail in a city core is that it can go underground. Monorail is much more difficult to do this with.


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

Electrify said:


> I figured you could build the track "inside the tunnel" per se with a Safege monorail. With a straddle monorail, the tunnel would have to be wider to accommodate the train straddling the beam.


??? You actually reading what you are posting there? If the train straddles the beam, the train is wider than the track already. The "bogie" area would be the same size or slimmer than the interior passenger space inside the body. This allows the straddle monorail to require a far smaller tunnel cross section than the safege model, since most of the "track" is straddled by the train itself, while safege's model puts on considerable additional height. The straddle monorail can use a conventional shield tunnel and be economical with space since it definately would not need a supporting structure between the two directions, but a safege design would not be able to use a conventional shield tunnel and probably would have supports running between the two directions - that takes up space.

You have to keep in mind that even though it is rock, it is not permitted to use the earth rock itself for suspending a structure. Supporting a structure underneath is fine, because gravity is on your side, but suspended it is your enemy and you don't want to take that chance, thus you'd need to build a confirmable structure from the ground up inside the tunnel in order to meet structural safety standards.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

UrbanBen said:


> ^^ That's ridiculous.
> 
> How about this? This is what Sound Transit is building, and it's a much smaller profile.
> 
> ...


From those pics, the light rail looks MUCH larger than the monorail pics, with the exception of the Seattle concept one. Not too sure what that pic is supposed to be of (station perhaps?), but here are some pics of Seattle's current monorail:


































While it is good to see Seattle making light rail work for them, it would have been cool to see their current monorail system upgraded into a city wide transit network.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

You know, why is there such a defeatist attitude towards monorails? Is it cause of a Simpsons episode, or the fact that Disney uses them, or something else? I mean, if we can effectively put a train underground where there are utilities, building supports, sewers, molepeople, etc., what is so impossible about putting it above ground?

And really, if putting it above ground works, who cares whether it is light rail or a monorail? From what I can tell, monorail can do anything light/heavy rail can above grade (including capacity - look it up yourself), but looks much more aesthetic.


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

Electrify said:


> You know, why is there such a defeatist attitude towards monorails? Is it cause of a Simpsons episode, or the fact that Disney uses them, or something else? I mean, if we can effectively put a train underground where there are utilities, building supports, sewers, molepeople, etc., what is so impossible about putting it above ground?
> 
> And really, if putting it above ground works, who cares whether it is light rail or a monorail? From what I can tell, monorail can do anything light/heavy rail can above grade (including capacity - look it up yourself), but looks much more aesthetic.


I've tried to tell you several times already, it does not work in dense built-up areas with narrow streets like downtown Toronto. If you have big 8-lane American roads... SURE! IT'S PERFECT! Not too many 8-lane roads in Toronto; University, Don Mills, and parts of Lakeshore are the only ones that immediately come to mind - one has a subway already, another is slated for LRT, and a third is along an existing heavy rail commuter corridor and on its western end, where it is smaller, has LRT already, while the part that doesn't is covered by a highway that makes a monorail in that area impossible, not that it would matter as people would have a monorail blotting their waterfront over their dead body. Monorails along waterfronts don't scream "Toronto" at all, surface LRT along waterfronts does though, for historical reasons. 

It will also stick out like a sore thumb in low-density areas and easily be considered an eyesore. Elevated LRT would be the same thing. You think the SRT is considered "wonderful" by anybody? It isn't. It's elevated portion is not popular.

These things would work in hydro corridors, and suburban arteries such as Mavis in Mississauga and Bovaird in Brampton. However, the ridership on such streets would suck - they're designed to be places nobody wants to go as a pedestrian, purely car oriented.

Major streets that are not "walled off" from neighborhoods, like Hurontario, and Dundas, should not be considered suitable for monorail, they will not "mesh" with the built form and will encounter viscious opposition.


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

Western Transport Terminal, Presint 7



















From Google Eart










Monorail tarck @ Western Transport Terminal


----------



## forrestcat (Apr 21, 2006)

The Putrajaya monorail project was postponed due to financial problems. The project will only resume once Putrajaya's population is large enough to require the monorail.


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

> The project will only resume once Putrajaya's population is large enough to require the monorail.


That's right!


----------



## pflo777 (Feb 27, 2003)

reminds me a bit of north haverbrook


----------



## Arkdriver (May 2, 2007)

they should remove the escalator and put it elsewhere rather than leaving there for 10 or more years and leave it to rot.


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

*New monorail arrives at Disneyland*
Thursday, December 20, 2007
By SARAH TULLY
The Orange County Register










NEW ARRIVAL: A new Mark VII monorail is hoisted into place 
backstage at Disneyland Park in Anaheim on Thursday. 

PAUL HIFFMEYER, DISNEY 




> Guests will be able to ride the new train starting in February. The first car shipped in today.


ANAHEIM – The first new monorail car in two decades slid onto the Disneyland track on Thursday as the theme park prepares for guests to ride it starting in late February. 

Starting Monday, five flat-bed trucks transported in the five cars of the first redesigned train from Vancouver, Canada, where they were built. Crews ripped off white shrink wrap, which made the cars look like a Space Shuttle, and took about an hour and 15 minutes for a crane to hoist the nose of the first red-striped train to the parking area.

The ride started in 1959 as part of Disneyland's first expansion and the current cars have carted visitors around the Disney area since 1987. For three years, Disney Imagineers have been working on the upgrades that will roll out through the summer.

"I think we're always looking for ways to update and refresh classic attractions," said Scot Drake, the monorail lead designer. "This is definitely an iconic attraction."

The biggest change is the look of the train: The first electric cars have blue glass and red stripes that change color in the sunlight. The next two cars will be blue with purple glass and orange with blue glass.

Bench seats will face the windows, allowing visitors a full view of the parks, Downtown Disney and the Disneyland Hotel. The capacity and speed will remain the same.

Until the February debut, Disney workers will put finishing touches on the construction and test the train after the park closes.


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

New monorail arrives at Disneyland
NEW ARRIVAL: A new Mark VII monorail is hoisted into place 
backstage at Disneyland Park in Anaheim on Thursday. 
PAUL HIFFMEYER, DISNEY 










2004: The Disney monorail on its 45th anniversary. 
OCR - YGNACIO NANETTI, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER 










New monorail arrives at Disneyland
LIFT OFF: A new Mark VII monorail is hoisted 
from a truck and into place at Disneyland Park. 
PAUL HIFFMEYER, DISNEY 










New monorail arrives at Disneyland
1960: Guests queue up to ride the original 
Monorail train with the Matterhorn in background. 
PHOTO COURTESY OF DISNEY


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

*Surprise: new monorail in Turkey! *










Ankara, Turkey. Every once in a while, we get a big surprise in the world of monorails. Today it came in the form of an announcement of a new monorail in Ankara, Turkey. Usually we hear about new monorail technology in the form of computer graphics, but the new Tekray Monorail is already hardware! In fact, the test track is 1.5 kilometers long and will become a peoplemover-scaled transit system after testing. It is located on the grounds of the Middle East Technical University. Once the test period is complete, the Tekray Monorail will transport students, academic staff and university work staff. Azmi Seren Kalaycioglu, Tekray's Coordinator or Financial and Administrative Affairs, tells us that the monorail project originated in 2006, using Turkish capital and labor only. This is certainly a startlingly short development period from conception to hardware, another testament for monorail. The Monorail Society welcomes Tekray to world of monorails and wishes them success!


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

*İstanbul to be introduced to monorail system *
(10/17/07)

After the introduction of a high-capacity metrobus system to İstanbulites in mid-September, the İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality is planning another project to ease the densely populated city’s traffic problems. 

Under the new project, İstanbulites will enjoy a monorail system that will run on the Şişhane-Kulaksız-Cemal Kamacı Sports Center line on the European side of the city. The project will be launched in 2008 and is foreseen to be completed in 2010. 
A monorail is a single rail serving as a track for a wheeled vehicle; the term is also used for a vehicle traveling on such a track. The idea of an İstanbul monorail was first brought up in the early 2000s, among other projects proposed for a faster, cheaper and more efficient means of transportation in the city; however, a monorail project could not be realized at the time. 

The most common type of monorail in use today is the straddle-beam monorail, in which the train straddles a reinforced concrete beam in the range of 2-3 feet (0.6-0.9 meters) wide. A rubber-tired carriage contacts the beam on the top and both sides for traction and to stabilize the vehicle. There is also a form of suspended monorail in which train cars are suspended beneath the wheel carriage. In this design the carriage wheels ride inside the single beam.


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

*Scomi Rail to send final plan for Hanoi project*
Friday November 16, 2007
By B.K. SIDHU

PETALING JAYA: Scomi Rail Bhd, a unit of Scomi Engineering Bhd, has been given exclusive rights by the People’s Community of Hanoi City to submit a final proposal with costs for the development of a more than RM1bil monorail project, sources said. 

The plan involves Scomi proposing the design, engineering and construction plans for track alignment and the trains, besides the final costing for the entire project. 

Scomi has about 60 days to make its final submission. The company is believed to be working furiously to submit the final proposal for the development of the 23km monorail. The sources said Scomi would work with a Vietnamese consortium on the operation side. 

The company's initial presentation was made to the authorities in Hanoi mid this year. It is unclear if Scomi would be able to secure the contract but it remains hopeful, as it wants to become a sizeable player in the mushrooming monorail business. 

It has so far submitted bids to supply over 300 trains to several countries, including India (where it is looking to build about 50km of tracks), Syria, Mauritius, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Thailand. It is also in talks to supply 30 sets of trains for the 36.7km Medina lines. 

It is learnt that the company had on Tuesday submitted its bid together with partner, Malaysian Resources Corp Bhd, for the Penang monorail project. 

Come Nov 26, the company is also set to launch its second-generation monorail in Kuala Lumpur. The monorail is able to accommodate more passengers in each car, thereby increasing the capacity so as to be closer to that of light rail transit (LRT) systems. 

Scomi Engineering has its own technology in the monorail business and it also supplies electrical and mechanical systems for any type of monorail. 

Earlier this month, it was reported that Scomi had secured a RM121.8mil contract to upgrade the wayside electrical and mechanical systems for Putra LRT’s fleet expansion project for the Kelana Jaya line.


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

Three line system plan for South Korea 
(12/15/07)










Sokcho, South Korea. A 28-kilometer three-line monorail system is being planned for the Sokcho City area in South Korea. Sokcho is one of Korea's most popular tourist cities, with about 12 million visitors per year. The monorail would connect the city with Mt. Seorak National Park, Naksan Provincial Park, Yeonglang Lake, Hwajinpo Lake in Goseong, Mt. Geumgang in North Korea, Cheoksan Spa, Osaek Spa and the Unification Observatory in Goseong. The $72 million (USD) system is being developed to protect the environment during high tourist seasons and deal with increasing traffic in the area.

Gangwon Province Major Project web page


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

nazrey said:


> *New monorail arrives at Disneyland*
> Thursday, December 20, 2007
> By SARAH TULLY
> The Orange County Register
> ...


Imagineers? What a load of @#%%^#


----------



## vladorlando (Jul 30, 2007)

*Monorail in Moscow - it was not good idea*









Major of Moscow told - Built five years ago Moscow monorail - 4 km was not good idea for megacity like Moscow -too much hi cost ,too slowly .We re changing plans for monorail and we ll build metro in this districts


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

Light rail may operate at grade in urban enviroments because that is the cheapest and least disruptive way to get into a city core in cases when the streets are wide enough.

Anyways, for the elevated rail systems being shown, what are the chances of the concrete being painted a light color? It would reflect light rather than absorb it and things would not seem so gray


----------



## jserradell (Jan 6, 2004)

Hell friends,

Can anybody post a Putrajaya Monorail system map, with the name of the stations, please?

It has been impossible for me to obtain this map! Is there an official web?

Thank you very much


----------



## forrestcat (Apr 21, 2006)

zaphod said:


> Light rail may operate at grade in urban enviroments because that is the cheapest and least disruptive way to get into a city core in cases when the streets are wide enough.
> 
> Anyways, for the elevated rail systems being shown, what are the chances of the concrete being painted a light color? It would reflect light rather than absorb it and things would not seem so gray


I saw pics of the monorails pillars in Singapore being covered with creeping plants. Meanwhile alot of KL Monorail pillars are covered with advertisements.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

vladorlando said:


> Major of Moscow told - Built five years ago Moscow monorail - 4 km was not good idea for megacity like Moscow -too much hi cost ,too slowly .We re changing plans for monorail and we ll build metro in this districts


Any transit solution will be a disaster if it is implemented poorly, no matter what the technology. Moscow's monorail travels a low need corridor from nowhere to nowhere, runs only during midday, and up until recently only stopped at a couple of stops. It should have also been suspended instead of straddle, so that it would have performed better in the colder climate.

I know monorails have their fair share of criticisms, but I wonder if people actually know about their potential. Instead of looking at Moscow, Sydney, etc., where they have low capacities and costs per passenger, look at Tokyo, Tama, Osaka, Chongqing, and even Disney where monorails have heavy rail capacities. For transit use, monorails should be built to HRT capacity - something that is rarely done.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

BTW, does anyone know how much monorail costs to build compared to HRT or LRT? I'm talking about a quality system of about 75,000-100,000+ passengers per day, not some of these 30,000 ppd systems that are more tourist attractions or are corridors that should probably be serviced by standard rail.

I've seen different numbers all over the place. Las Vegas for example (which falls into the latter category of monorails btw) has numbers between 88 million per mile from monorails.org to 130 million per mile from lightrailnow.org


----------



## UD2 (Jan 21, 2006)

Chongqing Monorail - what these things are supposed to look like

Copyright belong to Levi @ www.Detiezu.com
http://www.ditiezu.com/thread-2683-1-1.html





































Copyright belong to 鱼香肉丝 @ detiezu.com
http://www.ditiezu.com/thread-26445-1-1.html


----------



## UD2 (Jan 21, 2006)




----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

There was a previous thread on monorails in which I posted information on the various monorail trains. This is a repeat of that post with a few updates. Please note that some of the numbers vary depending on the source. This is especially true of the train capacity numbers as there is no internationally accepted standard for the maximum number of people who can occupy a given area of floor space:

STRADDLE BEAM MONORAILS

Von Roll/Adtranz/Bombardier Type III-a - Sydney Harbor & Newark Airport








Length: 32.12m (105.3") (7 Car Train)
Width: 2.06m (6.8')
Maximum Speed: 26 mph (42 km/h)
Bogie Arrangement: 8 Bogies (7 Car Train) Bogies are located between passenger compartments. End bogies are not powered. There are two load bearing and four guiding wheels per bogie. There is no passageway between passenger compartments.
Tires: (16) 29.5" Load Bearing Wheels (7 Car Train)
Motors: (6) 37kW DC (7 Car Train)
Power Supply: 500V AC 
Passenger Capacity: 130 Normal, 170 Crush (7 Car Train)
Beam Configuration: Steel Box Beam 832mm high x 700 mm wide (32.8" x 27.6") with 940mm Top Flange (37")
Maximum Grade: 4.6% Up and 6.6% Down
Minimum Curve Radius: 20m (65.6')

Due to its low speed, the Von Roll/Adtranz/Bombardier Type III-a is usually not considered to be a transit grade system but rather a circulator system suitable for an airport or park. Similar systems are marketed by Intamin and Severn Lamb.


Alweg - 1962 Seattle World's Fair








Length: 122' (37.2m) (4-Car Train)
Width: 10'-3" (3.1m)
Height: 14' (4.3m)
Maximum Speed: 70 mph (112 km/h)
Operating Speed: 50 mph (80 km/h)
Bogie Arrangement: 8 Bogies (4 Car Train) Bogies are recessed into wheel wheels that form the base of centerline seats. There are two load bearing and six guiding wheels per bogie.
Tires: (16) 39.5" Load Bearing & (48) 25" Guiding
Motors: (8) 100 HP
Power Supply: 600 VDC
Passengers: 450 (124 Seated)
Beam Configuration: Concrete Box Beam 1.5m High x 0.9m Wide (59.0" x 35.4")
Maximum Grade: 12% (Limited to 7% for passenger comfort.)

The ALWEG train architecture features a body that is low to the guideway with the bearing wheel bogies recessed in wheel wells that form the bases of banks of seats that are on the centerline. This configuration is shared with the Hitachi trains on the Tokyo Haneda Airport line and the Monorail Malaysia trains in Kuala Lumpur.


Scomi/MTrans - Kuala Lumpur (1st Generation Train)
























Length: 69'-7" (21.2m) (2-Car Train)
Width: 9'-10" (3.0m)
Height: 14'-2" (4.3m)
Maximum Speed: 56 mph (90 km/h)
Operating Speed: 50 mph (80 km/h)
Power Supply: 750 VDC or 1500 VDC
Passengers: 316 Regular/536 Crush (4-Car Train)
Beam Configuration: Concrete Box Beam 1.4m-1.6m High x 0.8m Wide (55.1"-63.0" x 31.5")
Maximum Grade: 6%
Minimum Curve Radius: 70m (230')


Scomi Sutra (2nd Generation Train)
















Length: 76'-9" (23.4m) (2-Car Train)
Length: 217'-6" (66.3m) (6-Car Train)
Width: 10'-1" (3.08m)
Overall Height: 14'-2" (4.33m)
Floor Height above Beam: 2'-4" (0.70 m)
Top of Beam to Top of Car: 10'-6" (3.2 m)
Maximum Speed: 56 mph (90 km/h)
Operating Speed: 50 mph (80 km/h)
Power Supply: 750 VDC or 1500 VDC
Passengers: 24 per car seated / 79 per car @ 4 pax per sq. meter / 106 per car @ 6 pax per sq. meter
Beam Configuration: Concrete Box Beam 1.4m-1.6m High x 0.8m Wide (55.1"-63.0" x 31.5")
Maximum Grade: 6%
Minimum Curve Radius: 50m (164')


Bombardier M-VI - Las Vegas
















Length: 138' (42m) (4-Car Train)
Width: 9' (2.7m)
Height: 11' (3.4m)
Motors: Disneyworld Mark VI features (8) 100 Hp motors. Las Vegas M-VI may differ.
Power Supply: 750 VDC Inverted for AC Motors
Passengers: 196 (64 Seated) - Numbers are from a study by Lea & Elliott.
Maximum Speed: 53 mph (85 km/h)
Operating Speed: 45 mph (72 km/h)
Bogie Arrangement: 8 Bogies (4 Car Train) There are one load bearing and four guiding wheels per bogie. The bogies are located between passenger compartments. There are also a set of guide wheels at either end of the train. There is no passageway between passenger compartments.
Tires: (8) 45" Load Bearing & (32) 18" Guiding & (4) 16" Nose Steering
Beam Configuration: Concrete Box Beam 1.22m High x 0.66m Wide (48" x 26")
Minimum Curve Radius: 175' (53.3m)
Maximum Grade: 6%


Hitachi Large - Chongqing, Osaka, Tama, & Kita-Kyushu
















Hitachi Standard - Naha (Okinawa) & Tokyo Disneyland (Tokyo-Haneda uses a low floor variant.)
















Hitachi Small - Sentosa (Singapore)
















Monorail trains built by Hitachi since the 1980's feature a flat floor design with bogies under the floor.


















SUSPENDED MONORAILS

Wuppertal








Length: 24.06m (78.9')
Width: 2.2m (7.2')
Height of Car to Roof: 2.7m (8.9')
Passenger Capacity: 204 (48 Seated)
Bogie Arrangement: 4 Bogies per two section articulated train. Two double flanged steel wheels per bogie. 
Motors: (4) 50kW DC
Power Supply: 600 VDC
Maximum Speed: 60 km/h (37 mph)
Pendulum Swing Angle: 15 degrees (Trains automatically bank in turns.)
Minimum Radius of Curvature: 75m (246')
Maximum Grade: 4%
Beam Configuration: Steel truss work supporting a single steel rail. 


Mitsubishi - Shonan & Chiba








Length: 15.4m (50.5') (2-Car Train)
Width: 2.65m (8.7')
Bogie Arrangement: 4 Bogies (2-Car Train) Four rubber load bearing and four rubber guiding wheels per bogie.
Maximum Speed: 65 km/h (40 mph)
Pendulum Swing Angle: "several degrees" (Trains automatically bank in turns.)
Power Supply: 1500 VDC
Beam Configuration: Steel Box Beam 1.86m x 1.89m (6.09' x 6.18')


Further information is available at the following links:

Monorail Society Technical Pages
www.monorails.org/tMspages/TPindex.html

Monorail Society Beam Size Chart
www.monorails.org/tMspages/TPBeams.html

Scomi
http://www.scomigroup.com.my/core/energy_monorail.asp 

Bombardier
http://www.bombardier.com/

Hitachi
www.hitachi-rail.com/products/monorail_system/overview/index.html

Mitsubishi
www.mhi.co.jp/machine/e/product/trans/tra_02.htm

Metrail
www.metrail.com/


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

UrbanBen said:


> Sure, I agree with you there. It's flexibility - in Seattle, we have some tunnel, some elevated, and some at-grade (partial separation, in its own lane but crosses some signaled intersections with signal priority) - all on the same light rail line. We could never have built in the same corridor with monorail, especially because of our downtown transit tunnel - buses need to be able to interline with rails while we're ramping up light rail service.


The Seattle Central Link light rail line should have been built as a heavy rail metro. Most of the initial segment is grade-separated and all of the proposed extensions are grade-separated. The only sections that wouldn't be appropriate for heavy rail are the downtown transit tunnel and the Rainier Valley segment. The interlining with buses in the downtown transit tunnel is just a temporary measure. The buses will be evicted from the tunnel when the line is extended to the University of Washington. Many people including myself consider the decision to build the line at grade through the Rainier Valley to be a mistake. Seattle should have been able to have a better system for the amount of money that is being spent.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

Thanks for the monorail info a few posts up.


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

greg_christine said:


> The Seattle Central Link light rail line should have been built as a heavy rail metro. Most of the initial segment is grade-separated and all of the proposed extensions are grade-separated. The only sections that wouldn't be appropriate for heavy rail are the downtown transit tunnel and the Rainier Valley segment. The interlining with buses in the downtown transit tunnel is just a temporary measure. The buses will be evicted from the tunnel when the line is extended to the University of Washington. Many people including myself consider the decision to build the line at grade through the Rainier Valley to be a mistake. Seattle should have been able to have a better system for the amount of money that is being spent.


We voted down central link as a heavy rail metro - in 1968, 1970, and 1995. I agree with you that we should have it, but we said no. The next year, we said yes to light rail. And if you think we could have gotten it oh so much cheaper, why don't you talk to the lowest bidder about why their bid was so high? That's competitive capitalism. The state auditor's office also agrees we're not wasting any significant money.


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

UrbanBen said:


> The state auditor's office also agrees we're not wasting any significant money.


Depends if you are thinking long term or short term. Short term, no, you are not wasting any significant money. Long term, well, maybe you'll never know, but based on the information provided, it sounds like they didn't weigh long-term planning into the equation appropriately.


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

TRZ said:


> Depends if you are thinking long term or short term. Short term, no, you are not wasting any significant money. Long term, well, maybe you'll never know, but based on the information provided, it sounds like they didn't weigh long-term planning into the equation appropriately.


Who didn't?


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

UrbanBen said:


> Who didn't?


Seattle


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

TRZ said:


> Seattle


Look, by the time I got here, the choice was wider highways or a light rail system with about double the max capacity of Portland. You do realize they're planning long-term for 2.4 minute headways with 4-car trains, right?


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ The planners in Seattle produced unrealistic cost estimates based on the assumption that light rail would be relatively cheap. The voters approved the plan based on those unrealistic estimates. They did not understand that the costs would be similar to heavy rail given that much of the line would be in tunnels and on elevated viaducts. They will be struggling to make light rail function as a heavy rail metro with some of the longest light rail trains in the country operating at the closest headways for light rail anywhere.

The benchmark for comparison in Seattle seems to be the Portland light rail system, so most of the people in Seattle will probably think that they have a pretty good system. It won't occur to them that they might have been able to have a system like BART or the Metro in Washington, D.C.

Regarding rail transit service for other areas of Seattle, there doesn't seem to be any plan other than a few streetcar routes in the downtown area. For service to Ballard and West Seattle, there are presently no serious proposals for light rail even though it was implied that light rail would be the alternative when the Green Line monorail project was terminated. The Green Line monorail plan will provide a benchmark for comparison when any future proposals are made and I believe this will show that monorail would provide the best service at the lowest cost for that corridor.


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

greg_christine said:


> ^^ The planners in Seattle produced unrealistic cost estimates based on the assumption that light rail would be relatively cheap. The voters approved the plan based on those unrealistic estimates. They did not understand that the costs would be similar to heavy rail given that much of the line would be in tunnels and on elevated viaducts. They will be struggling to make light rail function as a heavy rail metro with some of the longest light rail trains in the country operating at the closest headways for light rail anywhere.
> 
> The benchmark for comparison in Seattle seems to be the Portland light rail system, so most of the people in Seattle will probably think that they have a pretty good system. It won't occur to them that they might have been able to have a system like BART or the Metro in Washington, D.C.
> 
> Regarding rail transit service for other areas of Seattle, there doesn't seem to be any plan other than a few streetcar routes in the downtown area. For service to Ballard and West Seattle, there are presently no serious proposals for light rail even though it was implied that light rail would be the alternative when the Green Line monorail project was terminated. The Green Line monorail plan will provide a benchmark for comparison when any future proposals are made and I believe this will show that monorail would provide the best service at the lowest cost for that corridor.


Green Line proposals will show that the monorail project had their rose-colored glasses on to the end, or potentially that it's easy to manipulate numbers by not including correct inflation adjustments.

There won't be Ballard - West Seattle service until we get Northgate and Bellevue built. There's just no comparison in need.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ Ballard and West Seattle both voted against the recent Roads & Transit ballot measure. I believe they feel short-changed.


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

greg_christine said:


> ^^ Ballard and West Seattle both voted against the recent Roads & Transit ballot measure. I believe they feel short-changed.


Believe what you like, polling says it's a lot more about the overall size of the package.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

*1st Middle East monorail on schedule (01/25/08)*
_Dubai, United Arab Emirates. This is the year that the Middle East joins the world of monorails. Later this year, the Palm Jumeirah Monorail System will open. Over 90 percent of work has been completed on the 5.4 km dual-lane guideway that runs from the shore and along the trunk of the amazing man-made series of islands. The system will have four stations; Gateway Towers, Trump Tower, a retail center and Atlantis Hotel. Track installation is set to be complete this summer. After that, a six-month test period will verify that the monorail is ready for the public. The monorail will connect with Dubai Metro, a conventional rail line that is also under construction. Aaron Richardson, a senior spokesperson for Palm Jumeirah developer Nakheel, says "The idea is to ensure complete connectivity so that tourists can leave Dubai International Airport on the Metro and continue through to The Palm, where they change over to the monorail system and move onwards to their hotel._


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

*Scomi involved in bid for RM5b project * 
Wednesday January 30, 2008
By DAVID TAN

PENANG: Scomi Engineering Bhd is among seven international consortia that submitted pre-qualification bids, which closed on Jan 25, for the RM5bil Mumbai monorail project.

Scomi is in the consortium led by India-based Larsen & Toubro Ltd.

The other consortia are Reliance Energy and Hitachi; Reliance Engineering and Siemens; Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd, JMC and Intimin; Gammon India and Metrail Swiss; Videocon and Aerospace; and Bombardier Transportation India.

Sources said the Melewar Group, which is bidding for the Penang monorail project, was not among the consortia bidding for the India project.

Scomi is also in the race for at least three more monorail projects in India.

StarBiz learnt that the Mumbai Transportation Redevelopment Authority (MTRA), which called for the tender, imposed very stringent qualification standards.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

*Hitachi bids monorail for Honolulu (01/30/08)*
_Honolulu, Hawaii. The City of Honolulu has received a dozen bids from transit suppliers hoping to provide the city with a fixed guideway system. The sole monorail bid is being placed by Hitachi America. Though bruised from the painful monorail experience in Seattle, Hitachi is not giving up on getting monorail work for North America. Other suppliers are proposing various forms of light rail, elevated steel rail, rubber-tired peoplemovers, bus rapid transit and maglev (Mitsubishi-Itochu). A five member "independent" panel will recommend the technology to pursue after evaluation of the proposals._

Here's hoping that Honolulu goes with the monorail. At best it could create a monorail renaissance in North America (especially with the new focus on transit), and at the very least have them be taken seriously by urban planners


----------



## mistermonorail (Dec 19, 2005)

*please credit what you copy/paste*



Electrify said:


> *Hitachi bids monorail for Honolulu (01/30/08)*
> _Honolulu, Hawaii. The City of Honolulu has received a dozen bids from transit suppliers hoping to provide the city with a fixed guideway system. The sole monorail bid is being placed by Hitachi America. Though bruised from the painful monorail experience in Seattle, Hitachi is not giving up on getting monorail work for North America. Other suppliers are proposing various forms of light rail, elevated steel rail, rubber-tired peoplemovers, bus rapid transit and maglev (Mitsubishi-Itochu). A five member "independent" panel will recommend the technology to pursue after evaluation of the proposals._
> 
> Copied, pasted and not given proper credit. Nothing new I guess. For my own satisfaction: this News Brief is taken from The Monorail Society website: http://www.monorails.org


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

mistermonorail said:


> Electrify said:
> 
> 
> > *Hitachi bids monorail for Honolulu (01/30/08)*
> ...


----------



## allurban (Apr 7, 2006)

Has there been any example of a SAFEGE monorail guideway being built into the deck supports of an elevated highway?

Id love to propose that over here in Malaysia as a wild, out there idea...see how many people would be interested...:cheers:

(there are 4 major elevated highways built over major transportation routes in and around KL, and it would be interesting if they had a safege monorail underneath)

Cheers, m


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

allurban said:


> Has there been any example of a SAFEGE monorail guideway being built into the deck supports of an elevated highway?
> 
> Id love to propose that over here in Malaysia as a wild, out there idea...see how many people would be interested...:cheers:
> 
> ...


Don't know of any SAFEGE ones that do that (though it is possible), but here is an ALWEG in Kitakyushu doing just that:


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

allurban said:


> Has there been any example of a SAFEGE monorail guideway being built into the deck supports of an elevated highway?
> 
> Id love to propose that over here in Malaysia as a wild, out there idea...see how many people would be interested...:cheers:
> 
> ...


For urban planning practices in general, highways and train lines generally should not share the same ROW, unless the train line in question is some kind of express service perhaps. I think this would explain why there are not really any examples of such a design, even though, as Electrify already noted, it would be possible to do that - it'd actually be the most appropriate technology for use along an elevated highway, I'd have to admit (that or an inverted urban maglev, which would achieve the same result just with cheaper upkeep).


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

Great video of Chongqing's monorail (3:58 - 4:18)


----------



## allurban (Apr 7, 2006)

*'Aerorail' to be built for Melaka, Malaysia*

It seems that Malaysia is finally getting the Aerobus system...except now it will be built in Melaka and it will be called Aerorail....



> *Melaka To Have Aerorail System*
> 
> MELAKA, Feb 27 (Bernama) -- Melaka is to have a RM1.8 billion Aerorail urban mass transit system, the first in Malaysia and Southeast Asia, which will be completed by 2010.
> 
> ...


Cheers, m


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

> *Massive steel and concrete for Honolulu (02/22/08)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://monorails.org/tMspages/News.html

This is disappointing. I am starting to see how light rail has its place, but seeing as how subways in North America these days cost 500 million/km average, monorail does make good sense when hitting heavy use corridors.


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

*Scomi, partners shortlisted for RM5b monorail job*
By Marina Emmanuel Published: 2008/03/19 
BusinessTimes



> Scomi, together with Larsen and Toubro, has been informed of its pre-qualification for the Mumbai and Pune monorail project in India, a source say



SCOMI Engineering Bhd and its partner have been shortlisted for the RM5 billion *Mumbai *and *Pune* monorail project in India, a company source said.

Scomi, which is in the consortium led by India-based Larsen and Toubro Ltd, has been pre-qualified for the project along with Reliance Energy Hitachi and Bombardier Transportation India.

The source said that Scomi, together with Larsen and Toubro, was informed yesterday. 

The project involves a 20-25km monorail line that is being proposed to be built in the Pune Metropolitan Region on a turnkey basis.


"The short-listed teams are said to be preparing for the bid for which details are expected to be made known in the next few days," a source told the Business Times.

It is learnt that the bids must be submitted at the end of May.

The proposed infrastructure project was reported to be a possible solution to the city's traffic problems.

It would be implemented on a build, operate and transfer basis for a period of at least 30 years, previous reports said.

Construction is expected to start in June this year and will take 24 months.

Scomi is also said to be in the race for at least three more monorail projects in India. 

Locally, it is partnering Malaysian Resources Corp Bhd and Penang Port Sdn Bhd for a 30km monorail project on *Penang island*.


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

Electrify said:


> http://monorails.org/tMspages/News.html
> 
> This is disappointing. I am starting to see how light rail has its place, but seeing as how subways in North America these days cost 500 million/km average, monorail does make good sense when hitting heavy use corridors.


It was actually cost that ruled monorail out, check the Honolulu transit website.



> Mag-lev and monorail are proprietary applications with a limited number of suppliers in
> business today which raises concerns about long-term costs and support.


----------



## urbanfan89 (May 30, 2007)

Electrify said:


> Great video of Chongqing's monorail (3:58 - 4:18)


Interestingly, the lady who does the announcements on the TTC was hired to do the English announcements on that monorail. This was after the mayor of Chongqing came to Toronto and was impressed by the voice.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

TRZ said:


> It was actually cost that ruled monorail out, check the Honolulu transit website.


The panel of experts ruled out monorail and maglev based on cost; however, they didn't have any actual cost data. The following is a snip from a Honolulu Advertiser article < http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080311/NEWS01/803110362/1001/NEWS01 > :

"...

The lack of detailed cost information raised concern among some council members.

"By their own admission (panelists) did not get any information on costs from most of the respondents to the (request for information)," said council Chairwoman Barbara Marshall, during a recent hearing. "I think that's critical.

"The whole idea here was that we were supposed to select a system based on cost efficiency."

..."


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

It's the lack of cost data that makes it so hard to plan for. That's part of the reason the Seattle Monorail Project tanked.


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

greg_christine said:


> The panel of experts ruled out monorail and maglev based on cost; however, they didn't have any actual cost data. The following is a snip from a Honolulu Advertiser article < http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080311/NEWS01/803110362/1001/NEWS01 > :
> 
> "...
> 
> ...


Hmmm, that certainly changes things, now doesn't it...


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

UrbanBen said:


> It's the lack of cost data that makes it so hard to plan for. That's part of the reason the Seattle Monorail Project tanked.


I agree; however, I would like to note that this is not a problem unique to monorail. I have seen the cost estimates for conventional rail lines be horribly wrong. The light rail line being built in Seattle is a prime example.


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

greg_christine said:


> I agree; however, I would like to note that this is not a problem unique to monorail. I have seen the cost estimates for conventional rail lines be horribly wrong. The light rail line being built in Seattle is a prime example.


It's all politiking I guess.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

Moscow monorail:

http://www.monorail.ru/


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

Apparently they are now running it like a regular metro route, and people are giving it rave reviews. Here's hoping they put in some higher capacity vehicles in the near future, since those ones cannot carry much more than a LRT tram can.


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

Electrify said:


> Apparently they are now running it like a regular metro route, and people are giving it rave reviews. Here's hoping they put in some higher capacity vehicles in the near future, since those ones cannot carry much more than a LRT tram can.


Jeez, you act like the vehicle is the only factor. It isn't. What you're proposing is a wider vehicle which would involve a system overhaul. The design capacity is set, you can't change it now except by making longer trains and tighter headways.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

Dusseldorf


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

^^ I wonder if that slim a beam could be used for longer and higher capacity trains? It would definitely make SAFEGE monorail a viable alternative to ALWEG monorails in colder climates.

Anyways, Toronto transit expert Steve Munro recently did a blog piece about the expense regarding the construction of subways. This is what I posted:



> I’ve mentioned this before with little fanfare, but what about looking at monorails for future heavy rail transit growth? I will admit I may have been a little misguided when I first brought the idea up as an alternative to Toronto’s Transit City plans since ultimately monorail are currently too expensive to compete with light rail, but I do think this post illustrates how they could be an excellent alternative to tunneling subways. While there are many monorails out there which have people-mover capacities, there are some which can carry just as many people as a standard subway train can, or close to it (according to Hitachi’s website, their largest monorail with 4 cars can move over 900 people at crush load).
> 
> From what I’ve been able to find, it seems that monorails tend to cost about 50-75% of what it would cost to build a subway through a similar corridor. And in areas with extreme density, I’m confident it could be much less. For example, the new subway line in Manhattan it expected to cost approximately $1.13 BILLION per mile (if my math is correct, which it probably isn’t, it would come to about $700 million per kilometer). In a situation like this, there is probably room for a good argument that a high capacity monorail could be just as effective and of a much better value.


And his reply:



> Steve: The basic problem with monorails, even if you believe the capacity figures, is that they require a structure completely separate from the corridor they serve. This places not just an elevated structure down the middle of a street, but a large elevated station structure over intersections. This poisons the space under the stations for pedestrian activity.
> 
> This is the same complaint I have about proposals for expansion of the RT technology. In Toronto (and in a lot of the Vancouver implementations), the RT/Skytrain does not run down the middle of a street, but runs along railway corridors. This means that stations straddle streets rather than covering them in. Where new lines in Vancouver have followed streets, they were generally placed underground. As design gets underway for the northerly extension of the RT in Scarborough, it will be intriguing to see what sort of designs the TTC comes up with to mitigate the impact of elevated structures.


http://stevemunro.ca/?p=738

I think it is clear where his bias lies, but he does have a point - do you think large monorail stations are too intrusive to the setting? I've looked at some pics of KL's monorail stations (which are designed for high capacity vehicles despite currently only running people mover sized trains) and they don't seem too bad, but I will admit they did not give the best view of what it is like to be a pedestrian underneath them.

Anyone here who has had some experience with large monorail stations, do you think they could not work in an urban environment? Even so, it is not as if subways do not have their fair share of problems either.


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

Electrify said:


> do you think large monorail stations are too intrusive to the setting? I've looked at some pics of KL's monorail stations (which are designed for high capacity vehicles despite currently only running people mover sized trains) and they don't seem too bad, but I will admit they did not give the best view of what it is like to be a pedestrian underneath them.
> 
> Anyone here who has had some experience with large monorail stations, do you think they could not work in an urban environment? Even so, it is not as if subways do not have their fair share of problems either.


Even small capacity stations look like ass - Tama Monorail for example, has a very, how shall I put this mildly; "uninspiring" look to their stations, yet it is a 2-door/car times 4-car/train-set vehicle servicing these cookie-cutter stations.

However, that said, while what Munro says is certainly something to be very mindful of, and indeed the RT itself is a testament to what not to do, it is not a finite truth. There is one example that remember vividly as an image, I believe it was from Belgium, it was elevated but not SAFEGE, however they encased the track very artistically and it looked AWESOME. That was not a station though, IIRC. Stations, which should not be above intersections, I absolutely agree with Steve on that point, need be located carefully and incorporated into the built form in a manner that is stimulating to the activity not only around it, but, as Steve pointed out, below it. Is there a way to do this? As long as it is not asphalt below the station, I believe this answer can be a definite yes, but I would like to stress that it is a challenge more difficult than non-elevated modes like LRT.

Subways underground generally don't have problems relating to the space above and around them - they do, but they are so subtle that these are not registered by the general public. Trench, at-grade, or higher is a whole different story though. As someone with some engineering and more architectural knowledge, I know that the general public is a little naive about the reality of subway integration and the nature of the space it uses, but the challenges they face are much more of an engineering and finance nature than the challenges of space-use and creating desirable space out of the station footprint that monorails are burdened with. That said, I would argue strongly that the results of a subway are richer if one addresses it with a problem-solving attitude similar to what is demanded by a monorail. That requires a great deal of creativity, and a multi-industry team or even consortium to pull off.


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

TRZ said:


> It's all politiking I guess.


Not really. The cost increase over estimate for light rail in Seattle matches the increases in materials prices. The cost increases that were seen for monorail in Seattle during the same time frame were a couple of standard deviations higher - they were more due to poor projections, and would have been far different even with static materials costs.

The SMP went from a $200 million city bond to a $2.1 billion capital cost. Light rail went from something like $3 billion to $4 billion - and some of that was due to changing from 1996 dollars to year of expenditure dollars.


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

UrbanBen said:


> The SMP went from a $200 million city bond to a $2.1 billion capital cost. Light rail went from something like $3 billion to $4 billion - and some of that was due to changing from 1996 dollars to year of expenditure dollars.


Ah, OK, that's different then. Thanks for those specifics, helps put things in perspective a lot


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Seattle has had many votes for monorail projects. In 2002, voters approved the plan that created the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority (A.K.A. Seattle Monorail Project) and authorized taxes to fund the construction of the Green Line Monorail. The cost history of that project is as follows:

Green Line Monorail - Original Promise to the Voters in 2002
Design-Build Cost
$1.3 billion / 14 miles = $93 million/mile
Total Project Cost
$1.75 billion / 14 miles = $125 million/mile

Green Line Monorail - 2005 Contract Price
Design-Build Cost
$1.615 billion / 14 miles = $115 million/mile
Total Project Cost
$2.016 billion / 14 miles = $144 million/mile

The project was over-budget by about 20% and had a similar percentage shortfall in the taxes that were being collected to fund it. The ballot measure that created the project required a revote if the project could not be completed as originally planned. In 2005, the voters were presented with the following plan:

Green Line Monorail - 2005 Truncated Project Price
Design-Build Cost
$1.334 billion / 10.6 miles = $126 million/mile
Total Project Cost
$1.687 billion / 10.6 miles = $159 million/mile

The vote for the truncated project failed, which effectively terminated the project. The requirement that the project be revoted if it could not be completed in accordance with the original plan was a reaction to what had happened with Sound Transit's Central Link light rail project.

In 1996, voters approved a "10-Year Plan", which included the construction of a light rail line from the University of Washington to Seattle-Tacoma Airport. The cost of the line was to be $1.7 billion and it was to be completed by 2006. The lack of detail behind the cost estimate is reflected by the fact that the campaign literature gave various lengths for the line up to 25 miles. As the engineering of the line commenced, it became clear that that the cost would be much higher than the original estimate. A revised plan was developed for a truncated and delayed initial segment. The wording of the 1996 ballot measure allowed the changes to be made without requiring a revote. The initial 13.9-mile segment is now expected to open in 2009 at a cost of $2.44 billion. A 1.7-mile extension to the airport is expected to open shortly thereafter at a cost of $225 million or $300 million if the cost of necessary changes to adjacent roads is included. A 3.15-mile extension to the University of Washington is being planned. The University of Washington extension is expected to be completed in 2016 at an estimated cost is $1.7 billion. The cost history of the project can be summarized as follows:

Central Link Light Rail - Original Promise to the Voters in 1996
$1.7 billion / 25 miles = $68 million/mile

Central Link Light Rail - Present Estimated Cost
$4.44 billion / 19 miles = $234 million/mile

The actual cost of the project has proven to be about two and a half times what was originally promised to the voters. In addition, it is about 10 years behind schedule.

The fundamental mistake that was made with the Central Link light rail line is that the original costs were projected based on the costs of light rail in other cities, which generally used existing corridors to build cost effective light rail. In Seattle, there was no existing corridor to be exploited. The tunnels and viaducts that are being built to accommodate the light rail line are similar to what might be expected for a heavy rail metro. The result is that the costs are also similar to what might be expected for a heavy rail metro.


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

greg_christine said:


> Central Link Light Rail - Original Promise to the Voters in 1996
> $1.7 billion / 25 miles = $68 million/mile
> 
> Central Link Light Rail - Present Estimated Cost
> ...


That's pretty outrageous there. It states 2.5 times the cost, that's total, it is even worse when taken from the per-mile context, which is closer to 3.333 times.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

^^ For that kind of money, Seattle could have simply built themselves a subway.

EDIT: Seeming how they can not seem to get things done, a subway there would have probably costed $500+ million


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

greg_christine likes to massage the numbers to attack light rail. Pay him little attention.

He talks about the monorail going to ballot in 2002, but ignores Initiative 53 in 2000, which actually funded the project with $200 million. The monorail project expected the rest to come from farebox recovery and advertising. There was more history than that, of course, with the initial vote for a study coming in 1997.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/mono191.shtml

Sound Transit and Seattle Monorail Project both underprojected costs and were also hit hard by construction cost inflation, but Sound Transit was realistic to begin with, and the SMP was not.

A subway would be ridiculously expensive. Tunneling costs hundreds of millions a mile - it's mostly the tunneling that drives up the average per-mile cost for Link Light Rail construction. The monorail was entirely elevated - Link's costs for elevated sections are comparable with what monorail would have cost.


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

TRZ said:


> That's pretty outrageous there. It states 2.5 times the cost, that's total, it is even worse when taken from the per-mile context, which is closer to 3.333 times.


Adjust for 13 years of inflation - 1.7 billion was in 1995 dollars. With construction cost inflation being in excess of 10 percent for the last several years, the original cost projections are around 3.5 billion in today's dollars, and the actual cost is about 4.4 billion.

I could pick this apart further - like pointing out that his 1.7 billion number was explicitly for 21 miles, not 25. The 1.7 also doesn't include the 500 million Central Link grant and the 750 million University Link grant from the FTA - grants that were expected from the beginning and specifically not built into the 1.7 billion number. The 4.4 billion does include those grants, which don't come out of local taxes. As I've said in the past, greg_christine is a master of long posts with outrageously misleading numbers. He's very anti-rail.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

There have been several votes in Seattle concerning both monorail plans and plans for conventional rail. The following is a brief history:

Conventional Rail Plans

1958 - Voters reject transit plan.
1962 - Voters reject transit plan.
1968 - Voters reject transit plan.
1970 - Voters reject transit plan.
1988 - Voters endorse planning for rail transit.
1995 - Voters reject regional transit plan with rail component.
1996 - Voters approve Sound Move 10-year plan with taxes for the University-to-Airport Central Link light rail line plus commuter rail and buses.
2007 - Voters reject plan that would have added 50 miles of light rail lines.

Monorail Plans

1997 - Voters approve an unrealistic and unfunded 40-mile monorail plan, which was terminated by the city council in 1999.
2000 - Voters approve $6 million monorail study.
2002 - Voters approve Seattle Popular Monorail Authority (A.K.A. Seattle Monorail Project) with taxes for the 14-mile Green Line monorail.
2004 - Voters reject an attempt to terminate the monorail project.
2005 - With the monorail 20% over-budget and 20% under-funded, voters reject a plan for a truncated monorail line, which terminates the project.

Sound Transit is debating plans for another vote to expand the light rail system. The vote could possibly happen as early as the fall of 2008. The mayor of Seattle, who forced the 2005 vote that terminated the Seattle Monorail Project, now presides over the Sound Transit board. This highlights the importance of getting the big political egos onboard for any major public works project. The Seattle Monorail Project board was made up of political outsiders with the result that the project was revoted until it was killed. The Sound Transit board features local elected officials with the result that Sound Transit's projects get revoted until they pass.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

UrbanBen said:


> greg_christine likes to massage the numbers to attack light rail...


I'm actually very much pro-rail, but I do criticize rail projects that I think are screwed up. UrbanBen thinks that I "massage the numbers", so I'll use his numbers instead of my own to show how bad transit planning has been in Seattle.

Regarding the cost of the Central Link light rail project, the original plan stated $1.7 billion. UrbanBen claims that this is actually $3.5 billion in today's dollars. I will accept this for arguments sake. We agree that the actual cost estimate to complete the line is now $4.4 billion. So the current estimate of the overrun is:

Central Link Light Rail
$4.4 billion/$3.5 billion = 1.26 (26% Overrun)

The Seattle Monorail Project stated the total project cost to build the Green Line as $1.75 billion in the campaign literature for the vote that funded the project. At the time that the project was terminated, they had unsigned fixed-price contracts that would have brought the total project cost to $2.016 billion:

Seattle Monorail Project
$2.016 billion/$1.75 billion = 1.15 (15% Overrun)

So, even if you accept UrbanBen's claims regarding the cost of the Central Link light rail system, it still has a bigger cost overrun than the Seattle Monorail Project.

Regarding the length of the Central Link light rail line, UrbanBen states that the promise to the voters was 21 miles, not 25 miles. For arguments sake, I will accept that the campaign literature was confused on this issue and that perhaps 25 miles was mentioned as a best case scenario and that Sound Transit never intended to promise a line longer than 21 miles. I will also note that the airport-to-university route that is presently planned is 19 miles in length. Two miles of the route has disappeared. Part of this is due to the location of the university station. The original intent was to serve the university district beyond the University of Washington campus. The current plan features the terminus at the southern corner of the University of Washington campus. It will be convenient to the football stadium and medical center but a long walk from residences and businesses in the university district.

UrbanBen has not disputed that the estimated completion date for the university-to-airport line now stands at 2016. The Sound Move plan that was presented to the voters in 1996 was described as a 10-year plan. The actual completion date for the Central Link university-to-airport light rail line will be 20 years after the vote. This was the principal change that allowed the line to be built following the realization that the cost estimates had been so wrong. Sound Transit collected taxes for nearly ten years before beginning construction of the light rail line.


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

Did you totally fail to read the articles I linked to? There are at least three problems (looking at it for ten seconds) with your last post. Let's see if you can find them - I already pointed them out. I'm tired of doing all the work to explain your numbers.

I have had all of these discussions with you in the Seattle Light Rail thread already, months ago - and yet, you pretend it's the first time, like things are new to you, and you're reasonable. For argument's sake, you'll accept that the campaign literature was confused? Again, read the articles I just linked to - the Seattle Times and P-I weren't confused. 25 miles was the maximum length, and assumed huge FTA grants. Those grants were not available after the Clinton administration.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ UrbanBen, please read your own posts. If you do, you will see that your own numbers indicate a higher cost overrun for the Central Link light rail line than for the Green Line monorail and that Sound Transit promised the voters at least 21 miles of light rail but will deliver a line that is two miles shorter and ten years behind schedule. Please also note that you have posted a link to an article that discusses one of the earlier monorail votes. It was the 2002 election that established the taxes to fund the Green Line monorail and set the parameters under which it was to be constructed:

http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=2524


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

So, you dispute that the monorail agency promised a line with a $200 million cost to local taxpayers in 2000?


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ UrbanBen, do you dispute that the voters approved a $1.75 billion monorail plan in 2002?

The voters approved a detailed monorail plan in 2002 that established the taxes to fund the Green Line monorail and defined the route and several other parameters for the construction of the system. One of the requirements of the ballot measure was that there would be a revote if the plan could not be executed as originally planned. This was a reaction to what had happened with the Central Link light rail line.

The 1996 Sound Move ballot measure that created Sound Transit featured weasel words that allowed Sound Transit to unilaterally change the plan without going back to the voters. As a result, there was never a revote when the Central Link light rail line went vastly over-budget. Sound Transit was able to shorten the route and delay the completion of the line to the university for ten years without having a revote. I believe this is one of the reasons that the recent "Roads and Transit" ballot measure failed. A lot of people just don't trust Sound Transit.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

Allow me to try and simplify this number game:



UrbanBen said:


> A subway would be ridiculously expensive. Tunneling costs hundreds of millions a mile - it's mostly the tunneling that drives up the average per-mile cost for Link Light Rail construction. The monorail was entirely elevated - Link's costs for elevated sections are comparable with what monorail would have cost.


So with the monorail, through the most dense areas (where mass transit should always focus on) the monorail would be elevated while the LRT would be tunneled. Therefore, the monorail would be the cheaper option through downtown Seattle.

Through the suburbs, the monorail would still be elevated while the LRT would be at grade, presumably with its own ROW and traffic light priorities where space permits. So in the suburbs, light rail would be cheaper. However, with the premium that the monorail would cost, you would also get the benefit of grade separated transit. This would mean no unnecessary stopping due to traffic lights and virtually no train-auto accidents (though in theory, a moron could always plow into a pylon).

On a whole, both have their pros and cons, but I feel monorail would have been the better value. The best solution though would to have monorail through downtown Seattle, and then connect to LRT in the suburbs.


----------



## deasine (Sep 13, 2007)

Electrify said:


> So with the monorail, through the most dense areas (where mass transit should always focus on) the monorail would be elevated while the LRT would be tunneled. Therefore, the monorail would be the cheaper option through downtown Seattle.
> 
> Through the suburbs, the monorail would still be elevated while the LRT would be at grade, presumably with its own ROW and traffic light priorities where space permits. So in the suburbs, light rail would be cheaper. However, with the premium that the monorail would cost, you would also get the benefit of grade separated transit. This would mean no unnecessary stopping due to traffic lights and virtually no train-auto accidents (though in theory, a moron could always plow into a pylon).
> 
> On a whole, both have their pros and cons, but I feel monorail would have been the better value. The best solution though would to have monorail through downtown Seattle, and then connect to LRT in the suburbs.


Well said and I completely agree. I was very disappointed (even though it doesn't affect me anyway) when Seattle rejected monorail over light rail. And the fact that their light rail system right now is mostly grade-seperated anyway!!!!


----------



## Songoten2554 (Oct 19, 2006)

i don't know whats with that yes and no voting thing i think it should go for yes.

Seatle doesn't have their minds straight they yes on one thing and no to that same thing.

why they should expand the light rail system it will be better then later on.


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

Electrify said:


> Allow me to try and simplify this number game:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You think the best solution would be a transfer? No planner would suggest that. Even Vancouver BC is building Evergreen Line as a skytrain extension (it sounds like) rather than force a connection to LRT.

Don't assume that Link light rail would be at-grade through the suburbs. Sound Transit plans for elevated + at-grade (but separated, like the sections next to 599 and 5 in Tukwila), fully grade separated. The only reason the Rainier Valley is at-grade is the planning failure and construction cost inflation that almost lost us the project.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ I believe that Sound Transit developed cost estimates for the future extensions of Central Link to Everett, Tacoma, and Redmond based on the assumption that they would be mostly elevated; however, I wouldn't necessarily have recommended monorail for the route. Given the distances involved, I would have favored a higher speed heavy rail metro similar to BART or the Washington Metro. In my experience, there is a significant psychological advantage in being faster than the motor vehicle traffic on adjacent highways. I experienced this most memorably on a recent trip to Baltimore, which has both light rail and a metro. Both have segments alongside highways. On the metro, there was a feeling of elation as the train began to overtake highway traffic even if this only lasted briefly as the train began to slow for the next station. On the light rail line, I found myself making "Giddy-Up" motions in my seat as the train was steadily overtaken by highway traffic.

This is what I find most irksome about Central Link. The cost over-runs for Central Link are in the past (I hope!); however, the fact remains that it is light rail. The way the system is designed, it is as though Sound Transit started with the intent to build a light rail line but then changed their minds and tried to morph it into a heavy rail metro.

For the Ballard-downtown-West Seattle route, I thought monorail was an excellent choice. I do not believe that they will be able to build a light rail line cost effectively unless they make it a streetcar line, which would be hopelessly slow. During the 2005 election that terminated the monorail project, opponents of the monorail implied that a plan would soon be developed to serve the route with light rail. No such plan has emerged.

UrbanBen, I have to comment on the title below your forum name, "the transit nazi". I am not sure many of the forum members get the joke. (I assume it is a joke!) A person with a name like Ben Schiendelman doesn't usually aspire to be a Nazi.


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

I'm glad someone else saw Seinfeld! 

I think Sound Transit knew all along that we needed heavy rail - but we shot it down. They came back to ballot with light rail because they figured (apparently correctly) that we would swallow that, but they've worked every step of the way to maximize future capacity within the constraints of the vote (and of their tax recovery). They can't justify the cost of a 75mph line, but they can at least build long stations.

I'm not relying on Sound Transit to build fast intercity rail - I know we need it, but they really just don't have the tax base to do it. I think the best way to get there is to build Everett-Tacoma and Seattle-Bellevue-Redmond light rail (and whatever else comes at the same time), improve Sounder service, and watch Cascades ridership go up to the point where the state legislature can reasonably talk about the Amtrak Cascades upgrade projects.

It really is the tax base that's the limiting factor. There is nothing you or I can do about that, so why let the perfect become the enemy of the good? We can always retrofit the lines later to go another 20mph in straight sections.

Just in terms of West Seattle-Ballard, once people have ridden Link, they will become more likely to vote for a citywide agency to build in those corridors. If we're patient and we wait for Sound Transit 3, the North King subarea will probably pay for those projects anyway, as the mainline will be built out. Those are the next logical places for Sound Transit to build.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

UrbanBen said:


> You think the best solution would be a transfer? No planner would suggest that. Even Vancouver BC is building Evergreen Line as a skytrain extension (it sounds like) rather than force a connection to LRT.
> 
> Don't assume that Link light rail would be at-grade through the suburbs. Sound Transit plans for elevated + at-grade (but separated, like the sections next to 599 and 5 in Tukwila), fully grade separated. The only reason the Rainier Valley is at-grade is the planning failure and construction cost inflation that almost lost us the project.


Transfers are not that bad, as long as they are not cheap extensions of a certain line. An example of this the connection between the subway and the Scarborough RT in Toronto. Basically all it is, is a cheap extension of the subway line into north Scarborough, with a few stops in the middle of nowhere. Ultimately most passengers on the line will have to transfer on to another bus once they reach the Scarborough Town Center station. Even worse, there is nothing of significant interest at the transfer station, thus reinforcing the idea that it is a needless transfer. The best solution would have been to create some kind of busway, allowing the bus routes that serve that region fast access to the subway, eliminating a needless transfer.

With that said, looking at a map of Seattle, I'd say it would be quite easy to have light rail and heavy monorail coexist in the same metro area. Below is a rough map I've drawn up of how it would work:










Red would be heavy monorail (two lines: north/south and west/east), while blue would be light rail. While transferring may be necessary depending on your destination, it is clear that you would take the monorail when traveling the inner city and the light rail when traveling around the city and suburbs.


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

Isn't it kind of pointless to talk about monorail through the main corridor when we're already building there? I mean: http://soundtransit2.com - this is just a matter of time.

Also, that BNSF corridor misses downtown Bellevue, Kirkland, and Bothell. It'd be a huge waste of money.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

UrbanBen said:


> Isn't it kind of pointless to talk about monorail through the main corridor when we're already building there? I mean: http://soundtransit2.com - this is just a matter of time.
> 
> Also, that BNSF corridor misses downtown Bellevue, Kirkland, and Bothell. It'd be a huge waste of money.


It was a rough fantasy map just to show how LRT and monorail could both serve the needs of Seattle. Monorail through the main corridors would in theory be cheaper and more efficient, because tunneling would be unnecessary and trains could hold up to 1000 people. LRT through the suburbs would be better because it could be built at grade with virtually full traffic signal priorities, and there would be less need for ultra high capacity trains.


----------



## UrbanBen (Apr 7, 2006)

Sure, actually, the Sound Transit long range plan does show light rail (although grade separated) in the 405 corridor, Lynnwood-Bothell-Kirkland-Bellevue-Renton-Tukwila-Burien.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

http://www.hitachi-rail.com/rail_now/hot_topics/2008/081002/index.html

Hitachi Transportation Systems Wins a USD 333 Million Contract for Urban Transit Monorail System in Daegu Metropolitan City, Korea
2 October 2008










Hitachi, Ltd., Transportation Systems announced that it has been awarded a new contract to supply the core sub-systems, i.e. monorail vehicles, track switches and signaling system, of the 24 kilometer monorail system that connects the northwestern and southeastern sections of Daegu city. This monorail system will be the first urban transit monorail system to be introduced in Korea. Civil construction will begin in early 2009, and the entire monorail system is scheduled to be ready for commercial operation by end of October 2014.

This Daegu monorail system will be an “Automated Driverless Operation System” and the very first monorail system in the world for the following unique charasteristics and state-of-the-art technologies.

1.“On-board Fire Fighting System (with application of water mist)” and “Emergency Egress Spiral Chute” will be installed in each train to enhance passenger safety;

2.Vehicle side windows in passenger compartments will be “Mist Glasses” with liquid crystal screens which will automatically change between “Blind” and “Transparent” mode in order to secure privacy of the residents along the monorail system route alignment; and

3.“Digital ATP System”, a field proven and state-of-the-art Distance-To-Go signalling system which was developed by Hitachi, allows trains to operate at shorter intervals than existing monorail systems.

Hitachi Railway Systems Korea Ltd., a subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd. established in 2007, shall coordinate the project management, systems integration service, and management of Korean subcontractors throughout the contract term. 

This new contract will be Hitachi’s largest order for a monorail system outside of Japan, and following orders from China, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.


----------



## deasine (Sep 13, 2007)

The privacy screening window system sounds cool


----------



## 2co2co (Apr 8, 2008)

Is Transrapid counted as "monorail"?

I guess, the concept "rail" is getting somewhat obsolete...


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

*Mumbai deal puts Scomi on right track*
By Marina EmmanuelPublished: 2009/02/28

As five Indian cities have allocated funds for monorail projects, Scomi is bullish that it is going to be kept on its toes in India over the next few years. 

INDIA'S financial and entertainment capital - Mumbai - is home to a population of over 12 million.

More than half of the city's residents live in ramshackle huts packed near train stations or in the shadows of modern high-rises, making it a city of sharp contrasts.

There is immense wealth with gleaming skyscrapers but also gut-wrenching poverty in massive slums.

This second most populous city in the world generates more than 10 million daily passenger trips catered by suburban railways and public transport bus services which are provided by Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST).
An inadequate road network continues to slow down traffic, causing chaos during peak hours and pollution.

But for this vibrant city which served as a backdrop for the award-winning "Slumdog Millionaire" movie, and one whose peace was threatened last November by terrorist attacks, traffic respite has arrived in the form of a monorail system.

The government of Maharashtra - through the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) - has given the nod for India's first monorail system, as an option of reducing the burden on the other forms of transportation. 

MMRDA's metropolitan commisioner Ratnakar Gaikwad told visiting Malaysian journalists recently that a US$60 billion (RM221.4 billion) budget has been allocated for investments until 2013.

"About 80 per cent of this amount will be used for the transport sector," he said.

With buses travelling at a snail's pace of 15km per hour due to the traffic, Gaikwad pointed to the fact that a main rail network and buses will not suffice to handle Mumbai's traffic. 

"This is why a monorail is needed to ferry passengers to other areas from the main rail routes," he noted. 

Enter Scomi Engineering Bhd (7366) and its Indian partner Larsen and Toubro Ltd, which last November clinched a RM1.85 billion monorail project in Mumbai.

Of the RM1.85 billion contract for the 19.5km monorail project, Scomi's portion is about RM785 million, or 42 per cent of the total contract value. 

"Business opportunities in India are tremendous as there is massive growth in the rail industry," Scomi Engineering's project director, Suhaimi Yaacob, said in Mumbai recently.

"This is probably the only country in the world where a railway system remains profitable even when 40 per cent of its users do not pay fares." 

Stating that there are five Indian cities which have allocated funds for monorail projects, Suhaimi is bullish that Scomi is going to be kept on their toes in India over the next few years. 

"Once we begin the monorail service in Mumbai, we expect the government to place additional orders for more cars," he added. 

The company is also eyeing two more monorail jobs in India - one in Bangalore and a second route in Mumbai - to be clinched by the end of the year. 

Other monorail markets targeted in India include cities like Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh, Patna in Bihar and New Delhi.

Suhaimi said the Bangalore monorail project is currently at the proposal stage and is likely to be carried out via a public-private-partnership basis. 

"Scomi," he noted, "is unlikely to take a stake in the project but will work through a partner although this has not been firmed up as yet." 

Scomi's partner in India for the Mumbai monorail project has nothing but high regard for its Malaysian participant. 

"Although there are many proposals coming to us, we would prefer to work with Scomi," Larsen and Toubros' executive vice-president and head for corporate initiatives Shailendra Roy told Malaysian journalists. 

Larsen and Toubro is India's largest engineering and construction company with operations in more than 30 countries. 

"We see no reason to go through the learning curve again with a new party," Roy added. 

"The MMRDA has given us a chance to partner Scomi on this monorail project and once it is a success, it will serve as an eye-opener in India and the rest of the world."


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

*Scomi closer to US$3b Bahrain monorail job*
By Marina EmmanuelPublished: 2009/05/28










Scomi Engineering is about to start identifying the exact route of the monorail and stations as well as how the project will be financed. 

Scomi Engineering Bhd (7366), the energy and logistics engineering subsidiary of Scomi Group Bhd, is about to embark on the second phase of a feasibility study for a US$3 billion (RM10.5 billion) monorail system in Bahrain.

The Middle Eastern state's Works Minister Fahmi Al Jowder was reported as saying that Scomi Engineering had embarked on preliminary engineering studies on available lines for its first monorail network.

Bahrain is in the midst of a nationwide overhaul of its road network, which is expected to help the country cope with a growing population and new infrastructure development.

"Scomi Engineering will conduct the second phase of the study after already completing the first phase," Jowder was quoted as saying in the Construction Week Online, a news portal for Middle Eastern construction professionals.
"Phase One, which looked at the project's feasibility, was approved by the Cabinet in September 2008," he added.

Jowder said the second study will identify the exact route of the monorail and stations as well as how the project will be financed.

Construction, to be completed in three phases by 2030, is expected to stretch 83km and include six rail links.

The first phase is reported to consist of a 23km section and 18 stations.

It includes the Green Line, a light rail transit (LRT) from Juffair through Manama to Seef, and the Red Line, a tramway from the Bahrain International Airport through the diplomatic area to Seef.

Scomi Group senior vice-president Kanesan Velupillai said the group was working actively on the project and that its officials had just returned from a round of fruitful meetings with the Bahrain authorities.

"We expect to embark on the second phase of the study in the third quarter of this year and to complete it in four months," he told Business Times yesterday.

In pointing out that urban transportation had become a critical priority in the Middle East, Kanesan said large investments were being committed towards infrastructure development.

"There appears to be no slowdown, especially with urban transportation and trains, which have become a critical priority.

"We have already stationed a person in the Middle East, while an advance team is studying cities in Saudi Arabia, Oman and Abu Dhabi," he added.[/QUOTE]


----------



## mrtfreak (Jul 23, 2005)

deasine said:


> The privacy screening window system sounds cool


Its similar to this I suppose: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0whS1r1cNw8


----------



## wizardist (Aug 11, 2008)

Perhaps, a monorail road will be built in Belarus from Minsk to Logoysk.

Source (russian).


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

*Scomi in monorail project talks abroad*
Published: 2009/06/15

SCOMI Group Bhd's subsidiary Scomi Engineering Bhd is in talks with several countries which are considering the possibility of adopting a monorail system to improve their public transportation.

The countries are Nigeria, Brazil and Saudi Arabia, the company said in a statement issued during the company's annual general meeting(AGM), in Kuala Lumpur today.

It is also participating in several tenders for monorail projects in India.

Commenting on the development, its chairman Tan Sri Asmat Kamaludin said: "Brazil will be hosting World Cup in 2014. Most of the cities in Brazil are very crowded and they have to improve their public transportation system.

"For other markets like Saudi Arabia, I think they need it because of the movement of pilgrims," he told reporters after the AGM.

Asked on the contribution of its Energy and Logistics Engineering Division, he said the division's contribution was still small but expected to exceed 10 per cent.

The major contribution is expected from Oilfield Services Division, which contributed over 70 per cent to the company's revenue last year. 

Asmat said the group was cautiously optimistic about its performance for this financial year amid the current global economic slowdown.

"Cost of management is going to be the key factor," said Scomi Engineering chief operating officer, Syahrunizam Samsudin.

He said the group expected to be cost effective and keep its margin, and was carrying out rationalisation of its overseas operations.

"We are seeing the benefit from the initiatives and hope to see better results," he added.

Syahrunizam said the emphasis was on sustaining performance but at an optimal cost.

The company will also continue to invest in human capital to support the organisational transformation plans, he added. - Bernama


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

The only Monorail thread we had is closed so I decided to open another one devoted to this type of transportation.

Most monorails in the world are small people movers, with the exception of the Chongqing metro in China, one line in Japan, the Kuala Lumpur line and a number of new lines being built in Sao Paulo and Bombay. 


Some existing systems


Chongqing











Dubai











Bombay















The Sao Paulo lines are 

Line 15 - 54 seven-car trains supplied by Bombardier and made in Brazil. 18 stations. First 2 stations to open by May. It will serve an eastern peripheral low-income part of the city. Expected weekday ridership: 500,000 passengers/day. It will be the highest-capacity monorail line on the planet.
















































Line 17 - 5-car trains supplied by Scomi, also to be made in Brazil. The line will serve a major financial center of the city as well as the old domestic airport.





















Line 18 - supplier not chosen yet. Not under construction yet. It will serve the Southeastern area of the metropolis (Sao Bernardo)




Please provide summaries of monorail lines elsewhere in the world so I can post overviews here.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

reserved


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Las Vegas monorail is not a people mover. It has several stations and it operates quite a long line.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

^^ The daily ridership of the Las Vegas monorail is 12,000, over 6km. 

More than many people movers, but hardly meaningful publlic transportation by international standards.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

mopc said:


> ^^ The daily ridership of the Las Vegas monorail is 12,000, over 6km.
> 
> More than many people movers, but hardly meaningful publlic transportation by international standards.


A 6km fixed-guideway public transportation line that carries 12.000 per day would be considered a success in any non-top-10 metro area in US. 

Local context is also important. Moreover, the Las Vegas monorail has all the trappings of public transportation: several stations, operating as a line (not as a single-direction loo), use not geared towards a unique site/venue.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

^^And the stations are way too far from the actual destinations, which in this case would be the Strip. the line is ridiculous. It takes you from nowhere and brings you to another nowhere. It's not a public transportation, its an expensive toy. Ppl ride it just because they've never seen such thing.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Falubaz said:


> ^^And the stations are way too far from the actual destinations, which in this case would be the Strip. the line is ridiculous. It takes you from nowhere and brings you to another nowhere. It's not a public transportation, its an expensive toy. Ppl ride it just because they've never seen such thing.


But stations have direct back-access to the casinos... and they have plans to extend the Monorail to the airport.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

mopc said:


> The only Monorail thread we had is closed so I decided to open another one devoted to this type of transportation.
> 
> Most monorails in the world are small people movers, with the exception of the Chongqing metro in China, one line in Japan, the Kuala Lumpur line and a number of new lines being built in Sao Paulo and Bombay.
> 
> ...


The list of exceptions to the statement "Most monorails in the world are small people movers" should be greatly expanded. I recommend that anyone interested in this subject start here:

http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Where.html

The list of transit monorail lines should include at least the following:

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Chongqing, China (2 Lines)
Mumbai, India
Daegu, South Korea (Under Construction)
Wuppertal, Germany
Moscow, Russia
Tokyo-Haneda, Japan
Kitakyushu, Japan
Chiba City, Japan
Osaka, Japan
Tama, Japan
Naha, Japan
Qom, Iran (Under Construction)
Las Vegas, USA
Sao Paulo, Brazil (2 Lines Under Construction)

We can argue about what constitutes a transit line versus a peoplemover. For the above list, I'm counting systems that have two parallel guideways and at least seven stations. This criteria brings in Las Vegas, but excludes Walt Disney World. I'm including lines that are in an advanced state of construction, but am excluding lines that are in the planning stage.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

Yes there are other Japanese lines. What is their size and ridership? 

The Moscow and Wuppertal systems I consider "minor" like the Las Vegas system.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Monorails are finally getting the respect they deserve as cost efficient, urban friendly, reliable, and affordable mass transit.


----------



## Falubaz (Nov 20, 2004)

Suburbanist said:


> But stations have direct back-access to the casinos... and they have plans to extend the Monorail to the airport.


Of course they have... but you need to walk hundreds of meters to get there. Very long walks make the line inconvenient. As for the airport extention... we hear about that since years... is it a decade already maybe?
Airport connector would be the best thing they could do... i dont get it, why they are waiting so long. For now Las Vegas monorail is a failure. 

In other countries monorail can serve the city as a regular metro line. So it IS possible.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

What about Vancouver monorail projects?


----------



## World 2 World (Nov 3, 2006)

*Kuala Lumpur New 4 car trains*



szehoong said:


>


----------



## saiho (Jun 28, 2009)

mopc said:


> Expected weekday ridership: 500,000 passengers/day. It will be the highest-capacity monorail line on the planet.


Chongqing Monorail Line 3 already achieves an average daily ridership of over 500,000 ppl/day
Monorail Line 2 ~400,000 ppl/day

Major 12km Line 2 south extension opening in 2014. Line 3 Northern extension opening in 2015.

Both lines are expanding to 8 car trains to cope with demand.

Also some good photos posted by Big Dog from the Chongqing Metro page.



big-dog said:


> Chongqing monorail line 2/3
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

^^ China :drool:

So Chongqing already has one line that alone transports 500,000 p/day.... in Sao Paulo the official estimate is 550,000 p/day for Line 15 in 2017 when complete, we will have to see.

The population of Chongqing according to Wikipedia is 29,4 million. Is that correct? Sao Paulo metropolitan area has 20 million.


----------



## saiho (Jun 28, 2009)

mopc said:


> ^^ China :drool:
> 
> So Chongqing already has one line that alone transports 500,000 p/day.... in Sao Paulo the official estimate is 550,000 p/day for Line 15 in 2017 when complete, we will have to see.
> 
> The population of Chongqing according to Wikipedia is 29,4 million. Is that correct? Sao Paulo metropolitan area has 20 million.


That's the entire "province" of Chongqing. The city itself is only ~7-8 million. I expect the ridership of Chongqing monorail line 2 and 3 to increase as more extensions and longer trains come on line. The oldest half of Line 3 has only been running for one and a half years and the newest half is less than one year old. As of 2014, its ridership has hardly matured. Typical rapidly expanding Chinese systems have a ridership growth of 10-15% annually.


----------



## Blackraven (Jan 19, 2006)

Monorail trains are awesome.

Unfortunately, there are a few that don't succeed.............such as the one in Sydney, Australia

I heard that it was a huge financial burden for the New South Wales government that they had to shut the line down......


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ Will the light rail line proposed to replace the monorail be expected to make a profit? The decision to demolish the Sydney Monorail was driven by development plans for Darling Harbour.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

The Sydney mororail, like most monorails in the Western World, was created as an amusement park ride more than actual transportation, and then I don't know why people are surprised that it doens't make a profit as public transportation!

Besides, the Sydney monorail cannot be compared to actual monorail metros like Chongqing, Tokyo and Sao Paulo. The Sydney monorail is a single 3.6km track that operates as a loop with four trains one after the other, capacity is dismal, the route is little useful and duh, it fails. That faiilure has nothing to do with how many rails exist under the train. Had it used conventional steel rail or maglev it would still fail.

Btw it is already demolished and no longer exists.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

Sao Paulo Lina 15 Monorail picture taken just a few hours ago, train durint tests at station. The first part of this line will open on limited hours on May.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

New video of Sao Paulo line 15


----------



## dimlys1994 (Dec 19, 2010)

Moscow Monorail, from Wikipedia:


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

Sao Paulo Line 15, in tests on May 2014, still not open to public


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ Still not open? The construction contract was awarded in September 2010. The line is expected to open next month. Getting from contract award to system opening in less than four years for such a major line (24 km, 17 stations) is remarkable.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

Yes it would be, if the whole line was to open next month - but only the initial 2.3km and two stations will open. The remaining stations are not even built yet, their foundations are beginning to show. They will likely open by late 2015.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

Line 15 monorail track switches to maintenance depot


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

mopc said:


> Yes it would be, if the whole line was to open next month - but only the initial 2.3km and two stations will open. The remaining stations are not even built yet, their foundations are beginning to show. They will likely open by late 2015.


That's still quite fast compared to most projects. BART awarded a contract to build just a cable-liner from Oakland Coliseum Station to Oakland International Airport < http://www.oakconnector.com/ > at about the same time that the contract was awarded for Sao Paulo Line 15. The cable-liner isn't expected to open until this fall.


----------



## Ruston (Aug 8, 2011)

A Monorail proposal for Cortina d'Ampezzo in Italy - for the World Ski Championships of 2019









Seems different from other seen; more info (only in italian, sorry) here
https://www.facebook.com/cortina2019edOtlre
http://www.altawind.ch


----------



## dimlys1994 (Dec 19, 2010)

Ruston said:


> A Monorail proposal for Cortina d'Ampezzo in Italy - for the World Ski Championships of 2019


I think that this is not a monorail - this is look like in Wuppertal


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

dimlys1994 said:


> I think that this is not a monorail - this is look like in Wuppertal


It is a monorail, as Wuppertal is as well (it relies in single beams for support and traction).


----------



## micro (Mar 13, 2005)

^^ suspended monorail


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

Here's the Monorail Society's definition:

http://monorails.org/tMspages/WhatIs.html

_MO*NO*RAIL n. 1. A single rail serving as a track for passenger or freight vehicles. In most cases rail is elevated, but monorails can also run at grade, below grade or in subway tunnels. Vehicles are either suspended from or straddle a narrow guideway. Monorail vehicles are WIDER than the guideway that supports them._


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

Okinawa Monorail


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ The above photo is a great image, but my understanding is that the Naha monorail on Okinawa operates with two-car trains. Given that the passengers of the second and third cars have the same sequence of shirt colors, it seems plausible that the above image was photoshopped.


----------



## _Night City Dream_ (Jan 3, 2008)

Some pics of Moscow monorail taken by me on June 12.

















A tram line right below.





12.06.2014


----------



## _Night City Dream_ (Jan 3, 2008)

dimlys1994 said:


> I think that this is not a monorail - this is look like in Wuppertal


There are two main types of monorail - on the rail and under it, accordingly.


----------



## Alargule (Feb 21, 2005)

Monorails, schmonorails...

@ Night_City_Dream: nics pics - they also show the absurdness of this particular monorail implementation in Moscow with the tram running right below it. I really love the potted plants in one of those pictures :lol:


----------



## lkstrknb (Jan 14, 2009)

Thanks for sharing the pictures, Night_City_Dream. Was the train fully automated, or was there a driver or attendant on board?


----------



## XAN_ (Jan 13, 2011)

There is a driver, but, AFAIK, by default train is operated automatic, except door closure and departure.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

greg_christine said:


> ^^ The above photo is a great image, but my understanding is that the Naha monorail on Okinawa operates with two-car trains. Given that the passengers of the second and third cars have the same sequence of shirt colors, it seems plausible that the above image was photoshopped.


It certainly was - notice how the window in the middle car is exactly like the window in the third car


----------



## HARTride 2012 (Apr 1, 2007)

^^
Agreed, and just about everything in the two cars are identical.


----------



## south (Nov 26, 2005)

greg_christine said:


> ^^ The above photo is a great image, but my understanding is that the Naha monorail on Okinawa operates with two-car trains. Given that the passengers of the second and third cars have the same sequence of shirt colors, it seems plausible that the above image was photoshopped.


You sir, are about 1000x more observant than the average internet user. Yep, Naha monorail is only 2 cars. And like almost everything else in Japan, clean and efficient.


----------



## _Night City Dream_ (Jan 3, 2008)

Moscow Monorail.

Vystavochny Center station.







Terminus at Timiryazevskaya.



19 .06. 2014.


----------



## _Night City Dream_ (Jan 3, 2008)

Moscow Monorail.

Vystavochny Center station.







Terminus at Timiryazevskaya.



19 .06. 2014.


----------



## dimlys1994 (Dec 19, 2010)

_Night City Dream_ said:


> Moscow Monorail.


*Night City Dream*, you have double post


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

One of the major barriers for greater expansion of monorail use is the lack of a track standard. Each major manufacturer has its own setup. IF they could come with a standard for the track, it would be easier to convince more cities to adopt them, without fears of 'vendor lock-in'. 

Such standard should cover the geometry of tracks, height to floor and horizontal clearance.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ Yes, this is worth repeating on every page of this thread. In the United States, monorail never makes it past the initial screening of technologies for new transit lines being constructed by governmental transit agencies. Monorail is always eliminated as a proprietary technology. This situation will continue until multiple monorail manufacturers agree to build trains to a common standard so that they can operate on the same guideway.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)




----------



## mubd (Oct 14, 2009)

Blackraven said:


> Monorail trains are awesome.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are a few that don't succeed.............such as the one in Sydney, Australia
> 
> I heard that it was a huge financial burden for the New South Wales government that they had to shut the line down......


Not exactly. In 2012, the NSW Government bought the company which held the monorail and light rail for two reasons:

a) the Monorail route was in the way of a redevelopment at the Convention Centre and they didn't want to deal with compensatory actions for the monorail company
b) the Light Rail had extensions being built in the near future and the government wanted more control over it so that they wouldn't have to fuss over the operations of the new line

They got it at a bargain basement price - less than the value of the assets, I'd wager.

They weighed up their options and decided that removing the monorail was the best option. After all, the infrastructure was ageing and it would cost too much to reroute the monorail and purchase new rolling stock. The monorail wasn't making that much money anyway, and it was mostly used by tourists. There was a lot of opposition to it cutting through the city as well, most vocally from the Lord Mayor of Sydney.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

mubd said:


> ... The monorail wasn't making that much money anyway ...


Will profitability even be a consideration for the new light rail line that is being built? (This is a rhetorical question. The answer is "No!")


----------



## Azrain98 (Nov 27, 2011)

mopc said:


> Line 18 - supplier not chosen yet. Not under construction yet. It will serve the Southeastern area of the metropolis (Sao Bernardo)


did Scomi will tender Line 18..?

Scome monorail

It is reported that the state of Amazonas has awarded a BRL•46 billion contract to build a 20 kilometers long straddle monorail in the city of Manaus to a consortium of Scomi, CR Almeida, Mendes Junior and Serveng Civilsan.

The line from Largo da Matriz to Jorge Teixeira will have nine stations and a capacity of 35,000 passengers per hour in each direction. Completion is scheduled within 40 months.

Announcing the contract award on August 5th 2011, *Scomi said its BRL 342 million share of the contract includes the supply of 10 six car SUTRA train sets and depot equipment as well as beam design, system integration and project management services.*

Scomi is also part of the Monotrilho Integração consortium which signed the contract for the Line 17 monorail in São Paulo on July 30th 2011.
fonte:http://www.steelguru.com/internation...ct/219945.html


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

^^ No, Line 18 tender was postponed and no winners are known at this moment.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

"Wild Asia" zoo monorail, New York city (Bronx)


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

Chiba Monorail












http://40.media.tumblr.com/74d5414d1e05318d511e97eea734d573/tumblr_n7s0uqR3HT1rn92vwo1_1280.jpg


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

Poços de Calda city (100,000 inh) monorail in Sao Paulo state, Brazil, built in the 80s and never completed, it has been left parked near the city's bus station for almost 30 years.











*Monotrilho de Poços de Caldas fracassa*

JULIANA COISSI
ENVIADA ESPECIAL A POÇOS DE CALDAS

29/09/2014 02h00
Mais opções
PUBLICIDADE
Um contrato feito à mão em 1981 vislumbrava um futuro ousado para a mineira Poços de Caldas, em que o monotrilho seria a solução para o transporte de massa.

A cidade turística, famosa pelas águas termais e então com 87 mil habitantes, sairia na frente de São Paulo, que só no mês passado começou a operar seu monotrilho.

Mais de 30 anos depois do projeto visionário assinado pela prefeitura e por uma empresa de engenharia, no entanto, o que restou foi um trenzinho fora de moda que "jaz" no alto do atual terminal de ônibus, além de pilastras enfileiradas ao longo do rio Lambari, que poluem a visão do centro da cidade.

Diante da obra parada, o Ministério Público do Estado abriu inquérito e quer que as partes cheguem a um acordo e assinem um TAC (Termo de Ajustamento de Conduta).

Zanone Fraissat - 3.set.2014/Folhapress	
Sem nunca ter entrado oficialmente em operação, monotrilho continua em exibição em estação
Sem nunca ter entrado oficialmente em operação, monotrilho continua em exibição em estação
O problema é que prefeitura e concessionária não se entendem e se culpam mutuamente pelo fato de a obra estar incompleta e o serviço nunca ter funcionado.

Demolir as pilastras e vigas custaria até R$ 10 milhões, pelos cálculos da atual gestão. Já o valor necessário para ativar o monotrilho, dentro dos atuais padrões de segurança, é um mistério.

O contrato foi assinado pelo então prefeito Ronaldo Junqueira, já falecido, e a empresa J. Ferreira Ltda, a mesma que construiu o teleférico ainda em operação em Poços.

Assim como no caso do bondinho, a ideia da empresa era bancar totalmente a obra, e, ao fim de 50 anos de concessão, entregar o serviço sem ônus à prefeitura.

As pilastras e vigas foram erguidas nos anos 1980, mas o transporte nunca entrou em operação, segundo o promotor Emmanuel Levenhagen e a atual gestão. A empresa concessionária contesta.
fiasco inicial

No início dos anos 2000, duas situações agravaram o impasse. Na viagem experimental, o trem parou por uma falha técnica. Os passageiros tiveram de ser retirados do alto pelos bombeiros.

Na mesma época, duas pilastras de sustentação do monotrilho caíram. A concessionária acionou a prefeitura na Justiça, alegando que obras da administração municipal para desassorear o rio Lambari abalaram a estrutura de sustentação do monotrilho.

O procurador-geral do município, Dalmo da Silveira, diz que a prefeitura quer assinar o acordo, se houver consenso. Inicialmente, o município entende que o melhor é demolir a obra. "É um abacaxi que ficou por conta de erros do passado", define.

O advogado José Carlos Cardillo, que defende o engenheiro Joel Ferreira, da J. Ferreira, diz que só haverá demolição se a prefeitura indenizar a empresa.

O TAC pode ser assinado, diz Cardillo, se a prefeitura reerguer as pilastras que tombaram. Ainda falta um laudo que demonstre a segurança atual da estrutura.

Enquanto a disputa persiste, o promotor resume, com a mesma expressão do procurador da cidade, o sentimento dos moradores: "É um abacaxi que deixaram".


----------



## 압둘라-爱- LOVE (May 17, 2012)

*Riyadh KAFD monorail system*



> *KAFD monorail *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

Essentially identical to Sao Paulo's, although in a much smaller config (Riyadh will use small 2-car train sets, Sao Paulo uses 7-car sets)


----------



## DingeZ (Mar 28, 2012)

I've also had a lengthy discussion with Peter Timon. He also explained me that the cone can be raised to couple units for when one has broken down. The positive and neutral rails are never on the same side of the beam to prevent them from being abusively shortened. Bombardier has set a goal for tires to be changed every 100.000km.

Most of the discussion was about the advantages and possibilities of a monorail. But an existing problem is that they can't handle negative temperatures.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

DingeZ said:


> Most of the discussion was about the advantages and possibilities of a monorail. But an existing problem is that they can't handle negative temperatures.


Ice buildup?


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ Baloney!

Witness the Seattle Center Monorail.










Without much effort, you should also be able to find photos of the Moscow Monorail and monorails in the Tokyo area operating in snow. For example, see the following links.

http://en.airportnews.jp/headline/628/

http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/CnstMosc3.html

I was once on an Amtrak train that was stuck in Boston's South Station for about two hours due to a frozen switch, and I've seen the above-ground segments of the Washington Metro shutdown by a heavy snowfall, which goes to show that conventional rail systems are subject to being shutdown by snow and ice.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

DingeZ said:


> I've also had a lengthy discussion with Peter Timon. He also explained me that the cone can be raised to couple units for when one has broken down.


yes, we have seen that inn Sao Paulo several times





































A 14-car monorail!!!!:banana:


----------



## DingeZ (Mar 28, 2012)

With this particular monorail system freezing is a serious problem with automatic operation. When there is ice on the beams the system can't control the position accurate enough.

mpoc: Thanks for your illustration!


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ Systems with steel wheels and systems with rubber tires both face issues with traction in freezing weather, and yet both types of systems are able to cope.


----------



## DingeZ (Mar 28, 2012)

You didn't read what I stated, did you? It's perfectly possible to ride monorails in icy conditions, but *not with automatic train operation*.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

They can just apply a rugged, rubberized or "sandpaperlike" surface to the beams, in extreme cases. And steel wheels and rails are also very slippery.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

Chongqing


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

DingeZ said:


> You didn't read what I stated, did you? It's perfectly possible to ride monorails in icy conditions, but *not with automatic train operation*.


The implication of your statement was that the problem of traction in freezing conditions is unique to monorails. The reality is that the same issue exists for both monorail and conventional rail. An exception are systems propelled by Linear Induction Motors, which can have steel wheels (Bombardier ART) or rubber tires (Moscow Monorail). Another exception is systems in which the guideway is heated, such as the Lausanne Metro Line M2 and the West Virginia University PRT, both of which are fully-automated and ride on rubber tires.


----------



## DingeZ (Mar 28, 2012)

That is certainly true. Just Bombardier's system doesn't have such features and thus is not suitable for freezing conditions.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

DingeZ said:


> That is certainly true. Just Bombardier's system doesn't have such features and thus is not suitable for freezing conditions.


The same issue exists with the Copenhagen Metro and the Canada Line in Vancouver. Both are conventional steel-wheeled system that normally operate as fully automated. During inclement weather, staff are on standby to take manual control of the trains.

Many metro systems normally operate in automated mode for most of the station-to-station cycle. For instance, the Washington Metro relies on the drivers only to close the doors. The train then operates in fully-automated mode until the doors are opened at the next station. Again, the drivers are on standby to take manual control in case of traction problems. I've been told that wet leaves can be a bigger problem than snow.


----------



## DingeZ (Mar 28, 2012)

That totally depends on your systems and preventions. If snow is very likely during winter the trains will always be made to withstand. If there are lots of trees near the tracks it is likely some precautions, like sandite, have been made to tackle those particular problems. Often the biggest problems are those that are unlikely to occur.


----------



## greg_christine (Jan 25, 2004)

^^ The monorail in Daegu, South Korea is presently undergoing testing and is expected to open in early 2015. The monorail will normally operate as fully automated. Daegu does get significant snowfall. I expect that staff will monitor the operation of the trains during adverse weather and will take manual control as necessary, similar to the Copenhagen Metro, the Vancouver Canada Line, and other automated systems that operate in areas that get significant snowfall.


----------



## xrtn2 (Jan 12, 2011)

*São paulo*


Panorama 1 por sergiomazzi, no Flickr


----------



## ReginaMills (Sep 17, 2015)

Monorail systems have been proposed for three cities viz. *Islamabad, Lagos* and *Cairo*. These monorails if built, will help to reduce traffic congestion making the commute easy for people. The proposed monorail systems tend to connect the respective cities with satellite towns as well.

Links

*Islamabad*


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/islamabad/07-Mar-2016/mono-train-from-zeropoint-to-rawat-on-cards

http://tribune.com.pk/story/1093869/no-progress-cda-chinese-firm-talk-at-cross-purposes/



*Cairo*

http://en.starafrica.com/news/egypt-to-establish-skytrain-worth-4-5bn.html



*Lagos*

http://dailypost.ng/2016/05/09/japan-to-invest-1bn-in-lagos-monorail-project/


----------



## darkbytes (May 15, 2016)

*New Kind of Monorail*

The main problem with monorails is the track's size, if it's too big, it blocks the sunlight and that decreases the value of the street below, not to mention that if it has too many support columns it can block traffic and create even more congestion problems.

http://emonorail.com

The solution to all of this is a hanging monorail with a very narrow track that is supported from a suspension bridge-like structure, that way the columns are very far away from each other and the track is narrow enough that it can let sunlight unto the street:




























and not because is new and modern means it has to be ugly! this new monorails can be as beautiful as the buildings around, even in cities like Paris, Budapest, and so many others!


----------



## 00Zy99 (Mar 4, 2013)

In all honesty, that's probably more intrusive. 

Furthermore, the vehicles are too small, and the decoration is garishly overwrought, especially for Paris.


----------



## RyukyuRhymer (Sep 23, 2007)

In Japan, we have a hanging (the only one in the country) monorail in Chiba










here is an older version









It generally looks very clean and allows for more sunlight and skyline

but there are some parts that look ugly like

















But this is due to that area having other lines coming in and requiring the monorail to go higher.

I've ridden it twice. I don't know if it was off hours or whatever, but it was pretty empty.
Wikipedia says it has 45,000 daily passengers, 18 stations


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

^^ I've used it (2010), and my wife has too (2015). Was fairly busy for both of us - even had a video of the journey from Chiba station to Chiba Minato. Excuse her shaky camera though, she wasn't used to using it...








Also, it's not the only type of hanging monorail in Japan - the Shonan monorail is too. We've been on that one as well but again I've only got footage of my wife's shakycam! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shonan_Monorail


----------



## Yak79 (Nov 28, 2013)

darkbytes said:


> The main problem with monorails is the track's size, if it's too big, it blocks the sunlight and that decreases the value of the street below, not to mention that if it has too many support columns it can block traffic and create even more congestion problems.
> 
> The solution to all of this is a hanging monorail with a very narrow track that is supported from a suspension bridge-like structure, that way the columns are very far away from each other and the track is narrow enough that it can let sunlight unto the street:
> 
> ...


The same concept of Aerobus, a Swiss patent from from the 60s which has experienced little success since then: only few temporary applications and some attempts for a real line that never went beyond the planning stage.

Anyhow, this system can't do anything but - as if - mitigate elevated structures being visually imposing and obtrusive, which is the main reason because this kind of solution, albeit common at the mass transit dawn, is now pretty rare compared to the underground one.
Likewise, I highly doubt monorails in particular, despite being an hype recently and having a sort of renaissance in some countries, will ever be able to escape from their niche role in global transit market, no matter what kind of technical/aesthetic scheme it'll be implemented for them.


----------



## skyridgeline (Dec 7, 2008)

^^

For China, the main problem is the higher power consumption (~25% more) which accounts for ~25% of the running costs.


----------



## darkbytes (May 15, 2016)

00Zy99 said:


> In all honesty, that's probably more intrusive.
> 
> Furthermore, the vehicles are too small, and the decoration is garishly overwrought, especially for Paris.


That was just an example... the main page for this system is

http://emonorail.com

the sistem itself looks like several suspension structures intercrossing in the middle










In this rendering only two cars were used to 3 or 4 can be easily added!










Furthermore, is not more intrusive but less, the towers are places every block or two, as opposed to 4 or 5 per block as in EVERY other monorail system in the world, suspension structures allow for large spans!


----------



## darkbytes (May 15, 2016)

*Not the same, but better!*



Yak79 said:


> The same concept of Aerobus, a Swiss patent from from the 60s which has experienced little success since then: only few temporary applications and some attempts for a real line that never went beyond the planning stage.
> 
> Anyhow, this system can't do anything but - as if - mitigate elevated structures being visually imposing and obtrusive, which is the main reason because this kind of solution, albeit common at the mass transit dawn, is now pretty rare compared to the underground one.
> Likewise, I highly doubt monorails in particular, despite being an hype recently and having a sort of renaissance in some countries, will ever be able to escape from their niche role in global transit market, no matter what kind of technical/aesthetic scheme it'll be implemented for them.


http://emonorail.com

The aerobus runs on a rope and is not rigid, in this system the trains run on a beam, which is rigid! that gives far more safety, and as far as being visually obtrusive, because they are hanging monorails, there is no need for a big track, and that makes it less obtrusive. Because its based on suspension structures, the towers can be placed one every block, as opposed to 4 or 5 every block in EVERY other monorail system in operation in the world... Suspension structures allow for long spans


----------



## 00Zy99 (Mar 4, 2013)

The scale of the pillars and the suspension wires still make it an eyesore. It's less the pillars and more the beam itself that counts for intrusiveness in many cases. Pillars can be mitigated with things like artwork or ivy, beams can't.

I would also seriously question the idea of having a large-capacity monorail with such a small beam. There's a reason why you see large beams in the Japanese examples-the only small-beam monorail is the Ueno Park line, which is a small tourist attraction, not a mass-transit operation.


----------



## darkbytes (May 15, 2016)

*Better than any monorails!*



00Zy99 said:


> The scale of the pillars and the suspension wires still make it an eyesore. It's less the pillars and more the beam itself that counts for intrusiveness in many cases. Pillars can be mitigated with things like artwork or ivy, beams can't.
> 
> I would also seriously question the idea of having a large-capacity monorail with such a small beam. There's a reason why you see large beams in the Japanese examples-the only small-beam monorail is the Ueno Park line, which is a small tourist attraction, not a mass-transit operation.


The cables are not that big, how could they be so big that they block the sky? the only thing big enough is the beam and that can be easily be designed as a truss to allow a lot of sunlight to reach the street, in comparison, is about 10 times smaller that the current straddling monorails in Kuala Lumpur and Japan... 

It might not be perfect, but when it comes to solving traffic at a low cost, this might be the best solution, the amount of material is minimal and the number of towers is also small, please don't throw away any new ideas just because they're not perfect.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

I think all those wires and poles are far more unsightly than just a standard monorail track.


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

If you want to see something really cool take a look at www.skytrolley.com


----------



## k.k.jetcar (Jul 17, 2008)

LOL at the renderings of the rolling stock- MBTA Kinki Sharyo Type 7 LRVs with the bogies chopped off and monorail gear grafted to the roof.


----------



## nanar (Apr 12, 2005)

darkbytes said:


> The main problem with monorails is .....
> 
> The solution to all of this is a hanging monorail with a very narrow track that is supported from a suspension bridge-like structure, that way the columns are very far away from each other and the track is narrow enough that it can let sunlight unto the street:


and



darkbytes said:


> please don't throw away any new ideas just because they're not perfect.


It's absolutely not a new idea : Built more than forty years ago,
https://www.google.fr/search?q=aero...6OrMAhWpdpoKHfCrDEAQ_AUIBygB&biw=1023&bih=515




> ...It might not be perfect, but when it comes to solving traffic at a low cost, this might be the best solution, the amount of material is minimal and the number of towers is also small,


Used in just one city, during a short period. Ask why no more, no in others places ? 
It don't suceed to solve traffic problems, it was no low cost, and finally it was not a good idea

Public transport is serious thing, not playing with 3D drawing


----------



## 00Zy99 (Mar 4, 2013)

ssiguy2 said:


> If you want to see something really cool take a look at www.skytrolley.com


Wow. A youtube video of a glitzed-up SAFEGE system.

Never mind that this would take away traffic lanes at lower capacity and higher cost than conventional LRT. Its GLITZY!!


----------



## skyridgeline (Dec 7, 2008)

darkbytes said:


> The cables are not that big, how could they be so big that they block the sky? the only thing big enough is the beam and that can be easily be designed as a truss to allow a lot of sunlight to reach the street, in comparison, is about 10 times smaller that the current straddling monorails in Kuala Lumpur and Japan...
> 
> It might not be perfect, but when it comes to solving traffic at a low cost, this might be the best solution, the amount of material is minimal and the number of towers is also small, please *don't throw away any new ideas just because they're not perfect*.



It's only an idea and it's not perfect? :slap:.

This one is in use and it looked much better than that imperfect idea.


----------



## tjrgx (Oct 12, 2013)

*China unveils first permanent magnet straddle-type monorail train*

The first permanent magnet straddle-type monorail train independently developed by China has rolled off the production line in Qingdao. The train runs on two newly-developed systems and uses 10 percent less energy than existing models.


----------



## 00Zy99 (Mar 4, 2013)

skyridgeline said:


> It's only an idea and it's not perfect? :slap:.
> 
> This one is in use and it looked much better than that imperfect idea.


That systems has had quite a few problems. It pulls the cars along with a cable attached to a fixed motor. Unfortunately, the cable keeps breaking.


----------



## skyridgeline (Dec 7, 2008)

00Zy99 said:


> That systems has had quite a few problems. It pulls the cars along with a cable attached to a fixed motor. Unfortunately, the cable keeps breaking.


That's too bad. 

I think it's the longest and fastest in operation (https://www.dcc.at/references/oakland-airport-connector/).


----------



## skyridgeline (Dec 7, 2008)

lkstrknb said:


> Chongqing China has two monorail systems using Hitachi design which appear to be compatible, although I'm not sure if the station platform screen doors would match up. (I'm pretty sure they would though.)
> 
> Sao Paulo is currently building two separate monorail lines using two different manufacturers, Bombardier and Scomi, with two different beam sizes, so they are completely incompatible.
> 
> The two monorail systems in Moscow will probably never meet so building using the same technology doesn't *give many advantages*.


Unit, part and maintenance costs are significantly lower when scaled up. But the lighter line/system is much cheaper to start with.


----------



## lkstrknb (Jan 14, 2009)

skyridgeline said:


> Unit, part and maintenance costs are significantly lower when scaled up. But the lighter line/system is much cheaper to start with.


Sao Paulo is planning on building a third monorail line, so hopefully it will be built using the same manufacturer and technology as one of the existing monorail lines 15 and 17 being built now.


----------



## tjrgx (Oct 12, 2013)

*China's first sky train off assembly line*

China's first sky trains came off the assembly line in the city of Nanjing on Saturday, with China becoming the third country to master sky train technology, after Germany and Japan.

The Nanjing Puzhen Company Limited, affiliated to China's largest State-owned rolling stock manufacturer CRRC Corporation Limited (China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation), took only four months to design and complete the elevated railway trains, said CRRC.

The two compartments can hold more than 200 passengers, and when compared with subways and trams, sky trains have lower costs, better climbing and turning ability, and higher wind resistance.

Professor Yue Zhaohong at the Beijing Jiaotong University said the construction period of sky trains is also much shorter than that of subways, lasting only three to five months for dozens of kilometers of rails.

The overhauled railway is driven by batteries which can run for four hours at a time, and the batteries can be changed when stopped at a station, with the whole process lasting only two minutes.

Experts said sky trains are a good choice in third and fourth tiered cities and at scenic spots.

The sky trains are to debut in China next year at a variety of scenic places.


----------



## 00Zy99 (Mar 4, 2013)

Oy. If "Skytrain" is a fancy word for suspended monorail as I suspect, then France and the US have built systems too-they just didn't consider them economic-and for good reason. There are few places where this can function. Its mostly just a gadgetbahn.


----------



## nanar (Apr 12, 2005)

It's funny to see that, always, such systems are said by their promotors
"... when compared with subways and trams, sky trains have lower costs, better climbing and turning ability, and higher wind resistance" . :lol:


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

What is the advantage of a suspended monorail, versus a conventional monorail? A suspended monorail would need taller support poles so the train can clear things below it. It can never operate at ground level.

However I guess by hanging down it would be more stable on a narrower beam than a monorail that straddles the beam from above.

Also a suspended monorail could be better than an aerial cable car or gondola in certain implementations because unlike a cable car they can navigate inside corners.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

del


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Systems like the one in Wuppertal can actually freely lean in to curves (you can see that here at some points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHw44C1NQPs) I suppose that means good speeds at more narrow curves. This Chinese model seems to lack that feature though. Also the design reduces the oppressiveness of the line on the street below much less severe, due to slimmer design and the track being higher in the sky. Compare this to some elevated subway systems and you know what I mean, even slimmer regular monorail systems are inferior in this regard. 

I don't know why those Chinese designers think however that a battery run system would be a clever idea compared to an electricity rail as with the system in Wuppertal. Subways with batteries instead of 3rd rails, aren't such a common concept either, are they?

PS: In Wuppertal they just introduced a complete new generation of vehicles with a completely redesigned motor and electrical design. Looks good and brings the Wuppertal system into the 21st century. The cabin form is still inspired by the historic vehicles but also a new design. 









http://www.schwebebahn-wtal.de/02-a...n/65876-wsw-gn15-02-fahrschule-01.08.2016.jpg


----------



## 00Zy99 (Mar 4, 2013)

Quick note on guideway size-those pics above only show the Chinese train, not the guideway.


----------



## nanar (Apr 12, 2005)

In that video one can see the size of guideway (beam) and pilars of similar system in Chiba (Japan) : not very light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5eIl9eKjfA


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

True, I suppose the Chinese system is more like the Japanese than the one from Wuppertal. The latter does have a relatively light imprint in my opinion but it is also an actual rail-monorail, not some robber tire system. Due to its age it is also a historic steel construction. Those were simply much more pleasing to the eye than modern concrete structures.


----------



## lkstrknb (Jan 14, 2009)

Here are a couple recent videos from Tokyo.


----------



## tjrgx (Oct 12, 2013)

*China's first suspension railway completes test run*



















CHENGDU, Sept. 30 (Xinhua) -- China's first suspension railway line finished its test run in Chengdu, capital of southwest China's Sichuan Province, on Friday.

The lithium-battery powered train, which has a speed of 60 km per hour, successfully ran along the 300-meter test section of the railway line, after being suspended from the line on Friday.

The load capacity will be 120 passengers per train coach, said Zhai Wanming, chief designer of the project, from Southwest Jiaotong University.

Based on the current test line, Zhai estimates the cost of the suspension railway is one-fifth to one-eighth of the cost of underground rail per kilometer. He also said that lithium batteries were environmentally friendly.

The test section of the railway line will be expanded to 1.2 kilometers, for further tests on turning, climbing, and operations at train and charging stations, Zhai said.

"The test runs will continue for tens of thousands of kilometers to check performance capabilities before official operation," he said.

A suspension railway is an elevated monorail where the train is suspended from a fixed track.

One of the earliest electrical elevated railway systems, built in the German city of Wuppertal, opened in 1901 and is still in operation today.


----------



## 00Zy99 (Mar 4, 2013)

Leaving aside the manufacturing and recycling issues with lithium batteries, that carbody design is eerily similar to the one at Ueno Zoo.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFEGE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFEGE#/media/File:Safege.jpg


----------



## skyridgeline (Dec 7, 2008)

zaphod said:


> *What is the advantage of a suspended monorail, versus a conventional monorail? *A suspended monorail would need taller support poles so the train can clear things below it. It can never operate at *ground level*.
> 
> However I guess by hanging down it would be more stable on a narrower beam than a monorail that straddles the beam from above.
> 
> Also a suspended monorail could be better than an aerial cable car or gondola in certain implementations because unlike a cable car they can navigate inside corners.


Steel. And suspended monorails can be operated just about anywhere ( the most flexible of all the systems ).

-made and erect(or remove) faster/ ( and possibly cheaper now )
-steel takes up less space
-fire protection/heat is not an issue for this application

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1551092












00Zy99 said:


> Leaving aside the *manufacturing and recycling issues* with lithium batteries, that carbody design is eerily similar to the one at Ueno Zoo.
> 
> Also:
> 
> ...



I don't know about this lithium battery's lifecycles but the use of steel materials will likely offset the negative impacts. That giant panda suspended on rubber tires and not tethered to a "3rd rail" should make it really quite  .

http://www.archinode.com/lcasteel.html


----------



## tjrgx (Oct 12, 2013)

*Budget overground monorail train debuts in China*















http://www.wsj.com/articles/byd-launches-monorail-transport-system-1476418442

SHANGHAI—Chinese car and battery maker BYD Co. launched a monorail transport system Thursday, as it looks into China’s multibillion-dollar mass transit market.

BYD, which is about 8% owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in a statement that it has spent five billion yuan, or $750 million, on research and development for the monorail program over the past five years.

The monorail will be put into operation at its headquarters in Shenzhen, running for a distance of 4.4 kilometers, a spokeswoman for the company said Friday. Cars on the monorail system are capable of running at speeds of up to 80 kilometers per hour (50mph).

BYD has won an order for 250-kilometer monorail system from the nearby city of Shantou, the spokeswoman said. Another 20 cities on the mainland are in talks with the company over potential purchases, she said.

China’s transport ministry said in May that the country will invest around 4.7 trillion yuan in transport infrastructure projects over the next three years.

As cities grow and congestion increases, Beijing is calling for companies to intensify their efforts in developing new rail technology. BYD said building a monorail system requires only a fifth of the capital expenditure of a metro line and a third of the construction time.

The transport ministry said earlier this year that the total length of China’s light rail transit system will be increased from the current 3,300 kilometers to about 6,000 kilometers by 2020.


----------



## lkstrknb (Jan 14, 2009)

http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/CnstOki.html

This is from The Monorail Society website, an update for the Okinawa Yui Rail Monorail extension being built in Naha.




























Visit www.monorails.org for lots of great information on monorails.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^
^^

Are those monorails going to operate at that snail's pace seen in the video?


----------



## Losbp (Nov 20, 2012)

*Ashgabat Olympic Monorail*


----------



## 00Zy99 (Mar 4, 2013)

The Tokyo-Haneda Monorail was built for the 1964 Olympics. And it will serve the 2020 Olympics.


----------

