I've taken both the conventional Skyliner train from Narita, and the monorail from Haneda. The monorail was pretty underwhelming tbh. Patreon! / adamsomething
Just build regular rail, but call it the "hyper-rail" and paint the tracks with luminescent paint, or put RGB leds on there, and voilà, a futuristic marketable rail system for the lovers of fake-futurism.
If this channel has taught me anything, it's that every form of transportation that sounds cool and futuristic is basically just a shittier version of a train
Who would have thought that a technology that has been in existence for two centuries and is employed throughout the entire world might already have a lot of things going for it?
I do like his videos but he very much talks for one side of the argument in them. A really, really major thing he left out in this video is the actual utility of monorails - for use in extreme gradients. Trains use steel wheels on steel tracks, which gives them very low rolling resistance and thus makes them more efficient than say a truck with rubber wheels that need to grip a surface. This is why railways are so difficult to build in mountainous areas and require lots more tunnels and blasted passages than roads for cars do. A train running on a gradient of more than a few degrees is liable to simply lose its grip and slip backwards. Monorails don't have this problem but retain a high degree of rolling resistance efficiency, so they're useful for steep gradient changes. Chongqing is the only city in the world with an extensive, modern, efficient monorail system, and it works very well, as the city is literally built into the sides of two mountains overlooking a river canyon. Monorails have limited usefulness outside that very rare and specific situation, but they do have their uses - this guy makes it seem like they're total nonsense and always pointless.
The issue isn’t that that these cool futuristic transport methods are just shittier trains, it’s just that the ideas are never fully thought out past how they look and what buzzwords they use. They also keep trying to reinvent the wheel so to speak, instead of trying to improve it. Just my take tho. Of course some of these ideas are just plain shit regardless tho
Don’t forget about the positives . Monorails put Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook on the map. They can also inspire an entire town to do a musical number.
You missed one thing: monorails can climb/descend much steeper gradients than conventional rail, making them useful in some industries (eg mining) and in cities built on hills, such as Chongqing
Monorails make sense for one particular circumstance: When you don't have space for a surface light rail, and you don't want the claustrophobic cave-like feeling of a traditional elevated line above you (nor do want to spend for a subway). This video missed one other big disadvantages for monorails- if there's an emergency, the passengers have no place to go.
I feel like we actually need monorails. Because many cities are overgrown and overcrowded. Monorails can be a way to add one more mode of public transport without massive redevelopment.
@@thegrowl2210 Depends on the footprint. If they allow sunlight shine through in a narrow European street, why not. It would be great if the line can be actually connected to existing railway
Monorails are okay, but definitely only worthwhile in a few niches. Still they seem pragmatic as hell after looking at those Tesla/Boring Company loops.
I live in the capital city of Indonesia. I was confused why on an elevated track they used regular rail instead of monorail, it seems to consume more space. This video changed my mind.
@@kennethkho7165 yeah especially in jakarta where it's flat as fuck maybe a bit too flat in fact monorail can be useful, but only when it's on steep inclines
The underground runway by tesla is awesome! It combines a one way accident prone road with computer operated vehicles. It's like a subway, if it were to be personalized and slower.
they can be used in specific situations. Those things are scenic and light. The Issue is that if you can build regular rail it's ok but if you cannot well... you must adapt. Elevating a light rail is harder than elevating a mono. So it is basically that the utility. Also the degree that can turn is a bit better than regular trains and also the traction that has and it is a lot less noisy. That is basically perfect for downtown loops between the skyscrapers, because the elevation doesn't occupy too much space creating huge bridges or shadowing the streets making it look like Gotham. For the rest they are a bad idea.
Yes! In São Paulo, monorails are being installed just where you couldn't build standard train rails, there's just no space available. The other option viable would be subways, but that's way more expensive.
Literally the only place a monorail system works well is somewhere like Wuppertal, and even then that's because Wuppertal's geography makes a standard metro system basically impossible.
There are cities where they actually make sense and are used commonly.Chongqing has them in several lines and they work fantastically.Due to geological reasons they have a use in these specific areas and are sometimes even cheaper to build or can uave a change of route more easily.
Despite all their flaws, all my cities in cities skylines have several times more feet of monorail track compared to passenger rail or subways, simply because they're the only ones that have integrated road types, and I like being able to see the monorails running around the city.
I avoid using monorails in city skylines because they are expensive and inefficient. I have achieved perfect traffic flow and ridiculously low taxes without a single monorail.
There’s no magic or mystery here - a monorail is just an elevated train. Build it to move 20 people and it will move 20 people. Build it to move 20 million people and it will move 20 million people. The Sydney monorail was never intended to move many people. And the monorails in China move just as many people as the application called for. It’s not like there are some people who for some reason can’t get on the train! Monorails are for dense, highly populated city applications where ground interference and right-of-way is an issue, and where high-speed is definitely not feasible. They cruise about the city at 40 mph tops - so they don’t need fast switches. And, yes, you’re right, you definitely aren't going to send any old “Bob” out with a sledgehammer to whack on a switch. Monorails are insanely quiet - like an electric car rolling by your house at 20 mph. The wheels are tucked up inside so sound is virtually nonexistent. Perfect for a city setting. Like anything, monorails have their application. If they don’t fit the problem, then go with something else. But if you’re talking about transit for a dense and crowded city with no room to sprawl track on the ground, then monorails might be the perfect solution. Hundreds of thousands of people from all socio-economic statuses ride monorails every day. Monorails futuristic? That's funny, Wikipedia says they've existed since 1820. Monorails offer transit that’s clean, quiet, and that won’t roll over you while you’re out for a walk. They're perfect for many city applications.
None of these deal with the inherent problem of cost and comparability. Most of the American east coast has the same rail that can be used by commuter, passenger, and freight trains. Anyways, it's pretty rare to see a modern -planned city with rails just out and about--maybe trolly buses, but even then they are limited in speed in areas with high population, are usually on the same road as car, and they're about as dangerous as normal buses. Most cities already have sprawling tunnel systems for other infrastructure, where they can also put trains, and light-rails can always be elevated if need be--as is the case in a lot of densley packed cities, like Washington DC, London, Pittsburgh, NYC, etc. The only positive I can see is that they can be made electric, which we can do with trains, anyways. Ultimately, you missed the larger point: this video is not claiming that monorails are futuristic, it's responding to claims that monorails are futuristic.
Chongqing NEEDED a monorail because the city is literally built on top of a mountain and having mono rails running along the cliffs is much easier than conventional rail. Furthermore, there are a lot of elevation changes so having a monorail is also more practical in that regard.
@@bobjob3632 conventional trains struggle in hilly terrain or the same reason they are so great - very low rolling friction. The wheels can't get a good grip on the rails to get moving. In addition, a conventional train would require a lot of earthwork to flatten the area enough to actually lay the tracks. With a monorail being elevated, that earthwork doesn't need to be completed
In my city Bangaluru, India they just built a monorail few years ago and are continuing to add additional lines. Trust me it really helps to ease on the road traffic since our city is ranked 2nd slowest in the world for road traffic, and it's totally conjusted, an epic fail for urban road planning. It takes just 35mins to cover a distance by monorail that use to take 1.5hr by road, but with a caveat ofcourse. The time taken and inconvenience caused in reaching the station, climbing up the station and then down again, then reaching the final destination by road transport can take an additional 30mins of give away. But still saving about +-30mins and avoiding the hassle of slow driving and pollution. In a big conjusted city like mine the land acquisition and land availability is so damn slow that building a regular rail line for everyday commute is almost impossible and would need immense investment coupled with yearly inflation on land acquisition and construction of stations, making its unviable. Also causing further congestion in road traffic since they'll be lots of rail crossings throughout the city, making it very inconvenient and time consuming for people who still continue to travel by road or for those who want to reach these rail stations. Thus making the same rail commute unpopular and worthless. Also keeping in mind that large number of people traveling by road will never reduce even after introducing rail transport within the city, which is due to urban population explosion. As the facitilites in the city increases there will be more money and salaries at disposal. People will buy their own vehicles just for the heck of it because they got money to spend which they neveer had before. So all in all monorail aren't as bad as you present them to be. Here we have monorail trains at frequency of every 8mins from the station, and these are long with many coaches having high carrying capacity. They're fantastic and functional, but with all the caveats that were noted in your video which are still bearable.
Adam, after watching this video I still feel misinformed about monorails. You spent very little time talking about the benefits of monorails, so for people like me who don't already know why they exist, we only have one side of the story. For people who do know the advantages of monorails, they're going to discredit the video by pointing out all the benefits you failed to address.
@@partlycurrent I believe they are useful in elevated urban areas or when they are a much cheaper option compared to subways in places where ground rail is not possible
@@TheCureEnjoyer okay so how about we built a ski lift, but instead of double seated chairs, we connected them and had a tube around them so that they could lift more people up and down with ease... And we could call this cable tram, or aerial tram, it was NEVER done before, this is a billion dollar idea that will revoliutionize travel and even monorails, because now you need a single metal cable (very cheap) and a wheel (single! very cheap) that can drive over it! You don't need to force a whole train onto it either, individual cars can move by themselves! It is like mono-rail, but with pods, and actually works or something.
Another thing to note about the Sydney Monorail: It ran in a small loop around Downtown it wasn't a commuter monorail like Chongqing's. It was just a tourist trap attraction. So the Sydney monorail only helped the tourism sector, not the locals. It's no wonder the NSW gov got rid of it in favor of light rail
Worth noting that when it was created, it had plans to be an actual means of transport like the trains, train and ferry networks in Sydney at the time. Plans had been in place to expand the network far beyond the loop and as far west as Parramatta, south to the Airport and other spaces in Sydney based on the success of the project after those expansions. It was pretty much an attempt at having another means of public transport that wasn't trams decades after those lines had been pulled up for cars/buses. Then right before this project was set to open, the NSW government that commissioned the project lost office and was replaced by a guy whom had a hate boner for this (he wanted more improvements to help cars, plus other things not monorails). So all plans for the project pretty much died on the vine the night of the election. The business groups that hated the damn thing in the first place loved hearing about the death of this, as they felt it would ensure business plans and the like could be stolen from their offices by riders whom looked into their offices with the aim of doing this (blinds having not been invented by this point in time, of course, hence doing nothing to stop people seeing all the sex happening*). So this is why the damn thing was allowed to limp along for a time afterwards. It did have a good start as a means to move workers and the like between some parts of the CBD. However, that only lasted so long, and the numbers started to fall. Partly because of a lack of interest in trying to link it into the rest of the larger transport network within Sydney at the time. Hence why it became seen as a tourist trap/moving billboard. It did die in the end, but largely because the NSW government wanted to bring in trams, and pointed out the cheap cost of building them over the cost of trying to update and expand the monrail network. After the expected cost blowouts (rumour says to pay to find out what actually is under Sydney, since the maps had been found to be laughably out of date), they got the tramline working and created the newest tourist trap in Sydney. Maybe. Saying that, not a fan of the Metro system, since it pretty much hits the same limits of the old monrail system. But I give credit for at least not trying to pay for a test track that is meant to fund the rest of the project. *The blinds bit is a part joke, but it wasn't uncommon to see office workers at it from the monorail. Final fun bonus. There was a extra station listed as Casino when they built this. The station wasn't built at first, but was in the plans for when it was launched. This was for a planned Trump Casino that was to be built on the site, and meant to offer easy access for guests to locations in and around Sydney. The casino never went ahead because Trump withdrew his plans after the NSW cops wrote a report saying his connections to the Russian mob meant this investment was going to lead to crime issues if it was allowed to go ahead, hence it was cancelled on him. Station was later build, but not the same scale or design.
So as I had commented, it is being quite a bit dishonest to put the Sidney monorail up as an example against any other transit line that was put together competently to serve commuters.
Exactly! and it wasn't practical having a monorail running through the CBD. Yeh, Sydney is now putting back the trams they took out in the 70s.🤦🏽♂️ Glad Melbourne kept their trams, it's so much more convenient to travel around Melbourne without a car.
@@socialistsolidarity They took them out in the early 50's, fyi. ;) Mostly done by a party from the country that was lead by people whom hated the city and wanted to invest in the country more. Same party (and people) later tried to kill things like the Opera House and just lead to a longer production time/cost over runs doing that. Saying that, the tram system in Sydney at the time was good, but mostly unconnected networks that generally didn't support one another because the owners didn't want to lose out business to their rivals.
Except the light rail is not working that well either. It turns out there was an actual reason to remove the trams from the streets in the 50's and 60's. The monorail actually did a very good job for tourist traffic it so happens. What we should have invested in was a metro to the south east as what bradfield wanted to do in the 1920's.
Имею ввиду, что только 37 человек каждый день используют Московский монорельс как транспорт, остальные чисто покататься. Статистика взята из числа постоянных оплат картой Тройка.
Pretty disingenuous to not look at the Tokyo monorail line or the Disney monorail system - places where the system made sense and it's been utilized to a great deal of success - but overall the points raised here are pretty straightforward and correct about why monorails are not utilized in most situations.
But why did disney have a monorail instead of another elevated rail system? Because monorails were futuristic cool looking new concept that fit the aestheric or because they were more functional?
My city of Las Vegas has a short monorail system. It largely sucks. Because it's elevated, no major hotels want it in front of their hotel which would mess up the views. So it's so far away from the hotels no one wants to walk that far. And the other fault is it doesn't go to the airport, the one place it would be useful for. You can thank the cab/taxi lobby for that. That said, if we did have a monorail system that went from the airport all the way down the strip and to downtown, it would be somewhat useful. Instead we have a half assed system.
Would a train not have been more successful? .... A train would have been more successful and if the monorail finally gets removed, it'll be replaced by an actual train because the monorail is sucking money for less. The fact that Disney uses a monorail is so irrelevant lol theme parks use all kinds of crap. I don't think blindly copying Disney's monorail is going to do any good.
@@singularityraptor4022 digging underground is lot harder than you think. and what if there isnt enough demand for 6 cars metro? i live in korea and only seoul and busan subway can exepect those demand. what about other city?, where does not have enough people for heavy rail but still need reliable rail-like transport?
@@pol1315 Metro Line M1 in Budapest was the one opened earlier, but not accepted by some because it's only 4 metres underground, despite the London metro having parts that are literally above ground level. Or that's what I've been told and I believed, until I actually Googled it up. Turns out, the London Underground started operation more than 40 years earlier. Yeah, we Hungarian like to say that we invented the helicopter too
The reason monorail worked well in Chongqing is that the City is extremely mountainous and is known as a '3D city' in China. It has extreme elevation changes within a very small area so a lot of the infrastructure already need to be elevated. There are bridges connecting the top of a building to the ground floor of another. Surface rail and metro could only serve part of the city. It is one of the very few places in the world where monorails make sense.
Yeah. If for some reason we had more cities in mountains I imagine they'd be more useful, but considering terrace farming only took off on large scales where population densities were already high and rice was probably being grown, that doesn't leave too many options. Especially since even in mountainous regions you'd typically place your city on what little flat land you have.
That's excally why Chongqing also had large cable cars as part of their public transportation system. These are not your regular cable cars, these are capable of transporting 66 people in a single car.
Wuppertal still has the oldest running monorail in the world, which even emperor Wilhelm II. travelled in. So, it's not exactly about being hyper-futuristic, given it's an old concept. The use case for monorails is there, even though it is rare. Theoretically, you could fit these silent trains neatly into densely build areas even inside buildings since it doesn't require a separate electrical infrastructure on-top of it. It doesn't suffer as much from weather, which makes it an excellent use in colder areas. In addition, it also doesn't require special technologies to combat centrifugal forces for curved regions. That is aside from being able to cover much more steep tracks, which conventional trains only can do with an added cog track in the center. So, all in all, I don't regard it as a fad or special, it's a certain way to organize urban traffic. Not every city was designed with trams in mind like European cities did after the turn of the 20th century. You could argue that high-speed railways also use up unnecessary space and are a bad idea too. They require, for their high speeds anyway, a specially designed track that blocks most of the noise and vibrations, but most importantly doesn't cause dangerous gravel flight, their own tunnel and bridge systems, signal infrastructure and so on.
not if it breaks in cold weather, then good luck repairing that thing and getting out to those mountain sides where these things are suppose to be used, in said cold weather - and yenno trains don't require special centrifugal technology either, and at the end of the day these do NOTHING to address the reliability issue - the only thing these got going for them is steep incline, which btw most mountains are bypassed by existing train networks so its like a non-issue your going out of your way to fix - unless you build a city on a fucking mountain like some idiots in china who thought that'd be a smart idea. (lol, communists man)
@@_Aemse All I'm hearing is "conventional rail came first, therefore monorail bad". Those reliability issues you mention monorails having are basically the same conventional rails had way back when.
As someone who operated both a monorail and a train for a theme park, they are far more problematic then a conventional train, not to mention when compared to a train they feel more one time use so to speak, where if they break down thats it for it till it's repaired, whereas trains can have the engine swapped out and everything still work just fine
Someone at Disney said the monorail almost never breaks down, it did break the one time I was there because of the switch beam but they said it is normally a very reliable system. Not sure how true that was.
@@patricknedz it really does depend on the manufacturer and when it was built, the one I operated was rather old with a fiberglass body and a plywood floor, im sure Disney keeps there's extremely well maintained so it is probably true for them, but we all know railroads don't do the same maintanance as disney
Monorails also aren't that smooth apparently compared to conventional railways. Well because the "rail" is just concrete and not perfectly smooth unlike steel on rails. Its basically like bus but smoother but not as smooth as railway.
@@haunted1659 Sounds like the rails needs a maintenance especially if it's sitting on the track bed. it could be the boogie as well that the wheels needs to be refined as well.
I feel like the biggest issue with monorails is many aren’t built to get people where they need to go. They’re built as a cool looking gadget for tourists. And even at that many fail. Vegas monorail would be awesome if it stopped at the airport, but that would be too convenient
There have been plans to expand the monorail to the airport almost since the beginning the problem is is it will cost money that the monorail didn't have even before the pandemic
Would it be worth it from a marginal cost point of view to extend the existing monorail to the airport? Or is Monorail so bad that the existing monorail should be scrapped? Could the existing monorail pylons be retrofitted to take conventional rolling stock? Does monorail tech have an advantage of being cheaper to lay elevated track compared to conventional rolling stock? I noticed that the monorail elevated track is smaller than conventional rail elevated track.
But if the Vegas monorail went to the airport, it would get slammed for capacity...capacity that it has no way of handling. I used the Vegas Monorail during a convention. The lines just to get on board were horrendous. And that was just over a couple days. I can easily imagine that happening with an airport connection every day.
@@lenojames How long is the wait for a cab ride? It might not matter how lackluster the service might be compared to some really robust metro system like in New York. All it has to do is be more cost effective that whatever system is already in place. And the question of cost is a marginal one. If extending the monorail can offer more options and if it can provide value for even a minority of travelers, then it will benefit everyone by load balancing the other parts of the transportation network.
I've got a far more fundamental concern with monorails: Where do passengers evacuate in the event of an emergency and how do workers perform track maintenance? Elevated transit systems typically have a walkway between the tracks in opposite directions, but that's a feature that often seems to be omitted in monorail systems.
I love how this video talks about standardization, but then completely skips over the tolerance differences between light rail and heavy rail. I have yet to see any freight train anywhere diverting over light rail urban tracks, or vice versa. It’s mechanically possible, sure, until you get insurance companies involved. And no, Japan’s high speed commuter rail isn’t light rail. Good jorb falling into a polarization fallacy.
Because most light rail systems are also a joke. Cities try to build as much ineffective rail as possible to make it look like they are doing something, but then they only end up connecting park-and-rides, lower frequency than city buses, and are slower than driving. eg Light-rail only ends up being built in places that already has freight tracks in place to reuse. You won't see freight running on protected right-of-ways just like you won't see freight running on street-car's in the middle of the street. Sure the gauge might be the same, but you aren't sending a 2.4km train down a light rail track designed for only a 40m light rail/street car. That said, usually a "monorail" is the poorer choice over a conventional traction motor subway. In Bombardier's own documentation, they tout a monorail as pretty much being a turn-key light-rail system (eg a new build.) Places that build them, build them in tourism locations because they are quiet (no/low track noise) and unlikely to result in pedestrian intrusions unlike surface rail solutions. You can elevate subways and get the same benefits without having to commit to a single-manufacturer forever. In fact, this is why it's often a better idea to bury or elevate a subway in the first place, as it keeps the street free of traffic-snarling trains of any kind, and allows continuous high frequency operation, instead of having to contend with car and people traffic. Ultimately the episode of the Simpsons "Marge vs the Monorail" did a lot of long term damage not only to Monorails, but all forms of rapid transit, as it's often cited as a reason to not deploy ANY transit whatsoever, citing them as being a scam or boondoggle. "Why can't you just keep building more (tunneled/elevated) highways" is just as absurd as trying to do that with trains.
Here in California, BART managed to build a conventional light rail without gaining any of the advantages of cross-compatibility by using a weird non-standard track gauge. Also FRA safety rules don't let you mix light rail and heavy rail on the same track in the US. The reason is a light rail train that got in a collision with a heavy rail train would be crushed.
monorail is a special purpose solution, when there is no room for a conventional surface rail line, i guess its cheaper than building a tunnel in some situations.
How about we just elevate the conventional rail line, i know alot of belgium cities that have already done this like Antwerpen and Roeselare we're some stations are even elevated. Not like Belgium is the only one who does this just look around europe and asia. Monorail bad
@@pimmemaster6173 In the city of São Paulo, the biggest in the Americas, monorail was chosen precisely because an elevated conventional rail line would not only be more expensive, but it would also block sunlight and creat what is known here as "efeito minhocão". (in the 70's they build an elevated expressway over a local Avenue and it ruined the Avenue under it, basically becoming a taboo for any future elevated infrastructure). It works fine and also looks very good. Saying monorail is bad just because some youtuber said it is dumb, every situation is diferent and sometimes it can be the right choice.
I'm fairly certain the main purposes of monorails are for two things: Elevation issues, such as in Chonqing where it's super mountainous and makes conventional rails impractical. And Space issues, where you simply need more ground space for parks, smaller buildings, or roads and such, and a monorail line can simply go overhead and not interfere too much. Hence why most cities don't use them, but some rely on them.
The elevation argument makes sense but the space issue falls through. For space a conventional elevated rail makes more sense as it’s still cheaper for construction and maintenance than a monorail and can connect to other existing conventional rail infrastructure.
@@simonnachreiner8380 there are some other niche cases, f.e. apparently the suspended monorail of Wuppertal, Germany is apparently the most efficient system for their specific circumstances. But it's a highly populated area in a river valley, and it runs pretty much only over the river.
I live in a pretty dense city and use the monorail quite often for short distance transit. Ngl I don't see them planting a train in the middle of all this
We have an overhead train in our city.... so argument #2 just went out the window.... why would the city build a monorail when a train that can do far more than a monorail can be built and service the needs of the city far better....
Also, the sydney monorail was mostly used by tourists or people just curious about how a monorail works. I’m not aware of many people who used it in their day-to-day lives because you have to leave Street level to go up to get something that only went in One Direction. It mostly just shuffled tourists from circular Quay around to Darling Harbour.
Well Wuppertal in Germany has a suspended monorail for over 100 years. It is located over the local river (called "Wupper") and connects the mayority of the city. The city is populated along the river in a valley (german: "Tal" --> Wupper-Tal, you get it ;) ). So if you have a somewhat elongated urban formation and a small river you can use a suspended monorail is a great idea! (Well and if you have tons of steel at hand and want to brag about it in front of the german emporer because it is 1901...)
Not even we have monorails And why should we need one? We already have a tram system with Czechoslovak-built trams and a beautiful subway. Which is also the deepest in the world
@@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un I have always believed that the deepest metro system is located in St. Petersburg. And this is connected not with civil defense, but with water-saturated soils. In Kiev, the deepest station is under the hill, so the next station is above the ground. Unfortunately, the exact depth of the metro in Pyongyang is unknown, as it is a state secret. Until recently, tourists were allowed only at two stations of one of the lines, now all stations are available to them.
You missed a few things, monorails are a lot safer, they can climb/descend much steeper gradients, they are also great for city centers because they don't block the sky too much and they don't require a lot of space making them ideal for city centers they are lacking in terms of space.
Monorails make sense as internal transportation. I forget where exactly, but I was at some airport that used monorails to take passengers between terminals. The line wasn't built underground, and I guess the airport wasn't big enough to justify building a train? Also there's the opening scene in HL1 where Gordon Freeman uses a ceiling-suspended monorail to travel through different warehouses. If Black Mesa wanted to build a train or bus line, they'd have to sacrifice floor space or waste a ton of money digging a tunnel!
Suspended monorails have one distinct advantage: they come with banking practically built in so you can take tight curves faster. Beam-straddling "monorails" are just articulated busses wrapped around a square road.
Elevating a monorail is actually a benefit. Where you cant add any more width to an existing path like an existing road. Build over the road. Also you can build at ground level. A monorail doesnt need to be elevated They can be built at ground level. They may have their place in a larger system.
Regular rails can be elevated too, and when they pass the section that doesn’t have enough space, they can gradually return to surface level for the rest of the track to save money Cross compatibility and availability of traditional rails and trains can also reduce cost
So if I can't widen the road where do the pillars supporting the monorail go? In that magic space we don't have? In the road? Reducing lanes for traffic? Undoing the benefit? Ruining everything?
@@recklessrickey9513 The Berlin S-Bahn is the one example I know and personally I love it. Almost all stations have its unique charm and seeing the city landscape while conveniently moving across it was one the highlights of Berlin for me
@@Buglin_Burger7878 exactly lol. I live near an elevated subway line and the road it runs over can 100% be a 4 lane road but because of the random pillars its only 2 lanes with a little parking.
Monorails do make sense in some places with very specific characteristics though. Like Wuppertal, Nord-Rhein Westphalia, Germany mostly bc it's a city built lengthwise on the banks of a river along a narrow valley. Only one line is basically enough there, and the elevated railway above the river saves a lot of pedestrian-accessible space. But that's an extremely rare configuration.
There are sensible places for monorails like Wuppertal, where they had to suspend it anyway to put it just obove the river Wupper. But generally you are far better of with light rail.
I feel like when places like Bolivia or Yemen develop you could have some sort of commuter system that reaches the mountainous communities in a way that conventional rail can’t. Thin lines bored through mountains and over gullies that reach stations in areas with little room to work with . Yeah.... still capacity would limit it and it’s operations as the main issue with monorails in general. But something to think about, cause monorail is not really used for any commuter services and I see potential in some cases at least
@@michaelloedel750 Funiculars or cableways would work pretty well there. Realistically, the best transport use for monorails is in a controlled environment like an amusement park or for inter-terminal transport at an airport.
The Sydney monorail was always a meme though. It doesn't even service most of the city; it was setup as a glorified tourist trip that was incredibly overpriced.
Yeah I used to live right in the CBD and I didn't know a single person who ever used the monorail. It basically just went around the harbour and that's it
The movie 'Two Hands', they try to outrun bad guys on the monorail to only hvae them waiting outside at the next station, a reality that could be recreated in real life.
@@pt8306 people who championed it always said they would miss it, but when i asked the last time they rode it, they said the same year it opened in 1988! "Yeah I rode it one time in 1988".
Exactly,… you could easily walk the distance between all the areas that the Monorail serviced. There is still a sign remaining near Chinatown for one of the stations. In years to come, people may marvel about what it refers to.
Wuppertal. City in a valley with a river in the middle. The suspended monorail hangs directly above the river. Textbook example of proper use of monorail.
If you have a small industrial town, stretched at a river between mountains without room to grow and you want to connect everything with a one line light rail system, a monorail over the river might be a good idea. Germany has one town like this. It's Wuppertal and after the monorail went into service in 1901 it turned out to work great. No other town in Germany wanted to build one.
The same for parks. It ain't just another cool attraction only. It's over people's head because there is no space on the ground. If I recall Europa Park does this.
@@techpriest4787 There is a difference between public transport and local installations for example people mover between terminals of an airport or show effect in theme parks. I'm involved in discussions like this since more than 30 years and it's not just about one or two rails. It's about elevated, suspended or ground level or underground. It's about steel on steel, rubber on concrete or maglev. It's about different electrical engines or cable. For most larger systems and networks, the standard solution with normal rails in the normal width of 1435mm wins because it is the most versatile and compatible to existing systems. Good example is the light rail in Karlsruhe that act like a streetcar in the town but you can take a ride that starts at street level, continues as small train on the train-network and ends in a neighboring town again on street level. Proprietary solutions are great if you need something for a limited length and a smaller number of stations. Typical people movers are used at airports but also in ski regions to get up on the mountains in a lot of cases where normal trains can't be used.
@@Ulrich.Bierwisch they got two monorails. One with only two stations for an open air chil ride. And one with 4 stations that are meant for actual transit at a faster pace across the entire park. And yes, they are not mono rails because of coolness, but because the ground is stuffed with people. There is no space down there. Seems you never bin to a park before. And I thought my parents are junk for not having bought me a gaming console ever...
@@techpriest4787 I said "Proprietary solutions are great if you need something for a limited length and a smaller number of stations." In a park, where you want to connect a few stations you can build a monorail or something with two rails elevated over the ground. You also can use cable cars hanging in the sky like they did in the Expo 2000 in Hannover. It's a design question and there are several companies offering solutions ready to build. Hanging cable cars are small and offer the best view in all directions. This was ideal for the Expo. They are also best if you need to get steep up on mountains. Elevated Monorail looks very futuristic with the smaller track and the wider train. Theme parks like that. Airports often use standing cable cars that don't need an engine and allow driver-less operation. As mentioned in the video, the simple, normal rail system has many advantages if you need a network with crossings, joints, partly on the ground, elevated or underground and you want integration into a larger network. The guys who invented rails 200 years ago found a solution that holds up against all the new ideas until today. We have a few special solutions that are better in special cases but nothing that can do the whole thing including mass transport, heavy freight, high speed and streetcar in one compatible network.
@@Ulrich.Bierwisch you don't seem to know what you are arguing about... My point is simple: If you don't have enough space on the ground then you leave the ground. Not even parks do use mono rails for the shear fun of it. That shit design with its idiotic open air roof top that clearly your mom came up with. It ain't "cool", nor futuristic. It serves to show the park and clear the ground of crowds. The non open air transit monorail is also in the air because there is simply not enough space on the ground. Europa Park got both that's how big it is. I couldn't care less what is proprietary or not. That's an economical term not an engineering term.
During the 70s an old friend of mine worked on an experimental elevated, levitating monorail project in Cambridgeshire in the UK. The team got it working reliably and it seemed to show great promise. Then somebody asked the question “How do the passengers get out if it’s on fire?”. I am told that some of the abandoned elevated concrete trackway is still standing.
"Why monorails are often a bad idea" - here, I fixed it for you. You said it yourself - monorails are rare. But when you explained the downsides of monorail as compared to other rail systems, you forgot to acknowledge that that's precisely why monorails are rare - they are either built where they are needed or someone blundered.
or you can like watch the video and pay attention to the things he says. lol heres a gold star though, good for you little one - the adults are talking now.
@@_Aemse this is just a "skeptic video", something that can be useful and from which you can get some information, as long as you are not stupid enough to have this video as the only source
Actually, a "monorail" can make sense when it is build in smaller cities in mountain areas. Because once the cheapest way to build a new rail track over an existing crowded city is elevated, a suspension railway allows for much cheaper construction compared to elevated light rail tracks. Unless, of course, you need sheer volume, like in most Asian metropolises. But for some quaint german town like Wuppertal they're not a bad choice
The special case he mentioned in the video: Build it where nothing else makes sense. In the Wuppertal case, it was that the only possible way was above a river.
@@dipyaman93 actually, elevated suspended monorails are less expensive than elevated standard rail, and they can take curves much more comfortably and its much quieter. It made sense to build a Monorail in Wuppertal because a. the line has to be elevated for its entire length ( the city is build in a very narrow valley so very little space) b. its only one line (the city has the shape of a snake), so no need for track switching.
Internet-Sapien-Sapien do have Forums and such, and yes, we should discuss Adams Ideas and Elons Failings much, but what about Politicians? I mean, even outside of Rallys, its common-thing that Normal-People get to ask 1+ Question sometimes, in the esteemed Presence of someone important. Shouldnt we use this and ask about Adams various videos OR BLEACH BEING POURED ONTO DUMPSTERS so the Homeless wont DARE to eat perfectly-fine Food, as 'Second Thought' covered in multiple of his videos??
I’d like to mention the Wuppertal suspended train in Germany. How are you supposed to build a conventional rail over a river without “blocking” the view of the river or just covering the river. Another mention I would like to make is the Düsseldorf Flughafen H-bahn. It connects the airport train station to parking garages and the terminals. Yeah don’t think a conventional rail system would work in a tight space like that. Bottom line is monorails have a place but they have to be small places where having a normal train is just too big and expensive
Every Airport I've been (that has a tram, obviously) to uses Bombardier Innovia APM vehicles (except for Washington Dulles, which uses the same system just from a different company), which are essentially just automated busses with a third rail for power. They even use rubber tires.
Systems like the H-Bahn are designed to use automation to be viable just as a small system with few stops. Their use case is when branching a rail system is a bad option and existing trams are far away. Düsseldorf even has a railway branch but operating it just did not make any sence because it means reversing trains.
@@wta1518 H-Bahn is much less disruptive than a Innovia APM Viaduct or even a VAL Viaduct because it's a suspended monorail hanging on a small footprint modular track.
Something is not "a bad idea" simply because there are very limited situations in which it is practical. It simply means you only use it when it's the best option. Monorails are ideal in any situation where you want rapid, moderate capacity transit in a corridor with limited surface space and you don't need a lot of branching lines, if any. Going underground may be too expensive to be justified for a lower capacity line, will take longer to build, or will simply be out of your budget. Building dedicated right-of-way on the surface in a densely populated area may require demolishing a significant number of buildings, especially problematic if they are large and tall buildings, forcing many people out of the very neighborhood you are trying to serve with transit, and putting trains along roadways in mixed traffic slows the train down significantly, and even if you completely replace a road with a train-only right-of-way you are still likely to have to cross many streets, slowing down the train and/or the crossing surface traffic. Building elevated is then the best option for avoiding the above problems, and if it's elevated it might as well be a monorail, which is slightly less expensive than elevated bi-rail and less intrusive to the neighborhood because it takes up less overhead space (a la Chicago L). And if it also looks sleek and futuristic and attracts tourists and provides a good view for riders, that's just a bonus!
Yeah there are too many assumptions of absolutes in the video. Like semi-jokingly comparing the toy train to the monorail. Capacity and throughput is not the whole story. I don't care if a cargo passenger train could carry 5x as many people as a monorail per day. They're slow. If it takes longer to take a train from one city to another and costs 5x as much as it does to drive, I might as well fucking drive. This guy would bash airplanes and rattle off a bunch of efficiency reasons why trains are better but that doesn't mean it's always the case.
@@F0XD1E Agreed. This guy has too many assumptions and too many opinions he presents as fact. I've seen multiple instances when the logic of his content doesn't quite work out, or when he's missing some key points when drawing broad strokes. A great example was his hit piece on skyscapers, neglecting to mention places with land scarcity which actually need them. Its like he's a less well researched and highly political version of a good information channel like wendover productions or something. His titles are also clickbait, and makes his content something that applies to some, but not all circumstances.
Still better than the "hyperloop" could work in Miami where you can't dig down deep. Might be a convincing alternative to the hyperloop since the government there wants something futuristic, doesn't mean a normal train isn't better. It's just fair a compromise for the politicians there
Seems strange to sum up the only reason for building monorails as being a techno futuristic thing, when you talk about how they make more sense on lines which are entirely elevated. The Sydney loop you reference was entirely aimed at tourists, offering a elevated vantage point of lots of buildings of interest. The track was also so short, most normal commuters would just walk the distance anyway. It was functionally more comparable to a senic gondala rather than a transit system.
@@thespanishinquisition4078 not so fast if they are in urban areas. And the inter city maglev being built is doomed from start, it will loose so much money that probably will ended converted in conventional high speed (the line is built with that provision "just in case").
You can build them on top of rivers like Wuppertal Schwebebahn in Germany (if you don't have the space to build a regular train line on land). Very situational, but an argument nonetheless.
It's cheaper to build than elevated heavy rail. That's a huge advantage this video missed on. There's also the fact monorail can climb steeper gradients than regular trains.
Monorails do work in Japan. While I agree with all the problems listed AND the fact that passengers have nowhere to go in case of an emergency, Japan is willing to do what other countries are not, and that's regular maintenance. Furthermore, they have a slight issue called earthquakes which makes subways somewhat impractical in small to medium sized cities where an elevated monorail can fill that role in places where light rail is impossible to fit and the costs of running, maintaining and installing seismic protective measures are ludicrous when compared to monorails + the amount of passengers they're projected to transport. If we're talking about them being built in downtowns like tokyo or sydney where they're designed for tourism, then yes, they're a bad idea. They're essentially useless. This is the first of your videos where I agree with the problems, but disagree with the fundamentals. They were designed to fill a need where building a subway and light rails are impractical or downright impossible to build (be it regarding cost or space available), not to be used on a mainstream way or to replace railways all together. And yes, there are places where even a bus has difficulty reaching, as I'm sure everyone knows if they rack their brains up a bit. EDIT: My point about earthquakes was not about them being able to withstand them or not. I'm sorry for not clearing that out. Tunnels do, indeed, have a much, much easier job at handling earthquakes. The point I tried to highlight with the earthquakes is that in a country where seismic activity is not a matter of when, but how hard, it is sometimes much cheaper to build monorails than a subway in mountainous regions with medium to low density population (or high density cities, for that matter) as well as being much easier to maintain and/or repair than tunnels, while keeping the safety standarts. Besides, there's never guarantees that a tunnel doesn't collapse, even though the chances of that happening in tunnels that are constantly monitored are next to zero. My points essentially boil down to what I said: "They were designed to fill a need where building a subway and light rails are impractical or downright impossible".
One correction - Japan doesn’t build subways in smaller cities not because of the earthquakes. In fact, subway stations/tunnels are among the safest places you can be during an earthquake. It sounds kind of counter intuitive but the trick is the stations/tunnels move together with the earth, unlike the building that only has the foundation in the earth and the rest of the structure becomes “unsupported” from the sides/top.
You missed a opportunity: Wuppertal. The Schwebebahn (literal translation "hovering railway") is not really a monorail in the sense of what everybody immediately pictures in their head. It is actually a "mono" "rail", a single track rail and the trains are hanging on it like a barn door. Due to Wuppertals challenging topology they had no other choice to use the 3rd dimension. Since it now "hovered" (German: "schweben") above peoples heads they simply called it that way: Schwebebahn. It is a vital piece of infrastructure and even transports in the current pandemic 33k people a day (12mil/year) that is half of what is usual. And if its broken down the city is a mess 😑
Monorails can make sense in confined spaces where it would be difficult to build a regular railway. For example in Wuppertal, Germany. The monorail runs along a valley that's often already filled with things, going below is difficult as a river flows through the valley, so going above is a good solution. it serves about 80.000 people daily, which doesn't sound much compared to big metros until you realize that the city only has 355.000 people. It even runs extra trains when a football game happens and is one of the main ways to visit the stadion. On top of that, it's a big tourist attraction.
Thailand already have two Monorail lines under construction and planned to open this year. Serving as metro lines running around and through outer parts of Bangkok. Slimmer profile of tracks and trains proved useful for narrower routes and it won't look packed in the areas that the line running through,something that BTS didn't have it can get dark and tighty along BTS lines in central Bangkok. Less environmental impact to motorists and people around and below as well. Cheaper than try to dig tunnels to make subway as well but they have to move people in and out somehow without overeliant on cars that's why Thailand chose monorail.
All of this results in the one spot where monorails make sense: Inner cities or any other area where space is limited and underground construction isn't viable for one reason or the other. Meaning if the rail had to be elevated anyways and additional transpotation capacity is needed the only alternative is a monorail.
Also elevated monorail tracks let through a lot more light to the road below than regular elevated trains. Problem of course still, people actually need to walk all the way up.
@@flameconvoy7424 Stupid question, but is that a matter of "old vs new", or would choosing what design to use depend on factors - like weather/climate, etc?
@@DanknDerpyGamerless than 20 years old. We have very mild temperatures, comparable to America but with cooler summers so I doubt climate plays a factor. If anything, more extreme temperatures would incentives the larger more rugged looking frames of old transit lines
I went on the Sydney monorail many times back in the day, but not because it is effective public transport (I couldn't care less where it ended up), but because it's so cool! Going between all the buildings and over all the touristy places isn't just super fun from the inside, but also looks great to people down on the ground, and really does give off a futuristic vibe, even if it is otherwise pointless. I think that is quite a flaw in this analysis, to only look at it from a transport point of view. For that reason, I will always like monorails, it was a travesty that they removed the Sydney one.
Shouldn’t the primary purpose of expensive transportation systems be transportation? I get that aesthetics and experience should be a factor but probably a smaller factor
@@cubeofcheese5574 Absolutely not! If a city already has a good metro, bus, and tram system, then the addition of a monorail is not for effective transport, but a nice ride, like a helicopter tour, or the seaplane, just more affordable. The transportation factor of the monorail was far less of a concern, and it only really took you to the touristy spots, because that's the demographic in theory. Also, I don't remember it being too expensive, as I don't think I would've used it as much.
@@Bryzerse the problem with this idea is that cities don't build monorails as pure tourist experiences, and even when they do, it's at the expense of other forms or transport. The Sydney monorail essentially blocked the expansion of light rail in the inner city for decades and it's removal allowed for the creation of a cheaper and more affordable replacement that serves far more people in Sydney than the monorail ever could
When you don't have space on the ground for conventional train tracks, but still need to build a line; if the volume of passengers isn't going to be very large, then monorails make perfect sense. Their infrastructure is much cheaper to build than elevated train tracks and of course even more so if compared to underground train tracks.
@@ryanovr8 indeed, but here monorails start to make more sense: they can be narrower, so for weaving between skyscrapers they are a better idea. IIRC elevated monorails cost less to build than elevated birail, they are quieter than trains, they can go up steeper gradients than trains monorails have very, very few use cases where they make sense, but there are still situations where they make more sense than trains. Does that mean they're a bad idea? Not at all, it just means there are very few situations where they make sense
In what situation do you not have space on the ground? We’re talking about cities. Repurpose a major road for the rail line. You missed the point. We should be getting cars out of cities, not designing around them.
@@aidanivesdavis Hey I don't want to sound rude but your question makes absolute no sense. If it were to make any sense at all, there wouldn't be any tunnels or elevated tracks for conventional train systems already, since they are much more expensive than tracks on the ground.
The first reason of cross compatibility where you took Japan as an example falls flat, as Japanese rail systems are mostly isolated from one another based on company, track, gauge etc. Individual lines are often isolated from another making such bypasses or switches impossible. (This example does work in other countries such as in Germany).
Similarly doesn't work in India where Metros and RRTS run on meter gauge while entire nation's conventional rail infrastructure is broad gauge. Thing is, when you have a system as large as a few 100 km per city, you can afford to have rolling stock, maintenance infra, etc separate from the conventional systems.
While true, Japan does things one way compared to other nations based on circumstances. Not all rail systems are as isolated as the ones seen in Japan; for example, in LA, there's a project proposed known as the Sepulveda Pass project, and one of the options involved a monorail and the other heavy rail. The issue here is that LA already has two heavy rails, one of which is currently just a two-station spur for the other line, which is also being extended. Unlike in Boston, where each heavy rail line has a different structure and loading gauge, the LA lines are built to the same standard. The project is projected to be completed by the 2050s, but the issue with going with monorail is that it adds additional costs in terms of training for maintenance and operation. Furthermore, assuming that LA would buy their third generation of rolling stock at the time, LA Metro wouldn't be able to order additional cars to serve the Sepulveda Pass.
I just came back to watch this video since two monorail trains just crashed here in São Paulo. Thankfully, there were no passengers. The line was completely shut down for the whole day, and even the roads under the tracks needed to be closed since pieces were simply falling from the trains. Dangerous, inefficient idea.
As someone who lived in Sydney city during that period, one bad idea was missed. SAFETY!. Having a system with stations elevated off the ground meant small crime was a regular occurrence. Drunken fight, assaults etc.
Back then, Tomorrowland was about envisioning a future that could potentially be. Compared to the Tomorrowland that is now more so based on a fictitious view of a future. Though not to entirely fault them...it's harder for Tomorrowland to almost entirely remain nonfiction science and not have it become quickly outdated in only two decades these days. Granted, the one in Disneyland needs some serious refurbishment work; especially after the disastrous 1998 "renovation", but that is for another time. In regards to the monorail itself, it replaced what was essentially just a scaled down and almost useless version of the Disneyland Railroad known as the Viewliner. While it was at first just a small joy ride, it was later expanded to actually hook up to the Disneyland Hotel and eventually Downtown Disney. If anything, it has been more successful in the first two Disney parks than outside of them. It helps the one in Disneyland adds to the scenic view around the Matterhorn (even if they have to potentially construct a new version in the 2030s) and the lagoon.
Good points, and yet a bit one-sided. You give all of the cons, but none of the pros - unless you think there are absolutely no pros, but then you should have made this clear. Also, as an aside, mixing some Musk-bashing in there doesn't make for a good argument, it rather makes the arguments seem dubious and biased. So to give some counters to balance it a wee bit more in a nuanced way: - Monorails have an advantage over conventional rails in mountainous environment. That's because they can climb or decent with much steeper inclinations, and slopes or elevations are much less of a problem for them than for conventional railways. - They have a cost-advantage over underground railroads as far as the capital cost is concerned, which I missed in your whole comparison about the metro and monorails. While you've pointed out the costs of building an elevated structure on the ground for monorails, you ignored the much greater cost of digging a tunnel. In essence, you were cherry-picking which elements - such as capacity - you wanted to highlight so as to give a more favorable impression of the metro-system. - Where the ground prices are extremely high (think Tokyo) the cost of an elevated metro-system is even cheaper than that of regular on-the-ground railwaysystems IF you want to build completely new tracks. This is, because you only have to 'disown' or seize (aka; the state or city has to compensate for taking private property) small pieces of land (for the pillars), in stead of far more large swats of land to build a complete railsystem on the ground. Capital costs can be even 5 times higher, in the latter case. - The above advantage for monorails becomes even greater if there IS an alternative to seize property even less by making use of existing non-train infrastucture, such as roads. Since it's elevated, monorails can be used to be put on top of major roads, and thus allow dual use of the same area. This is not possible with classical railways, since those would simply replace the existing roads (since they are on the ground as well), OR you'd need to dig tunnels under those roads, making the whole thing exorbitantly more expensive. - Speed. While this is highly dependent on which monorail you compare with which classical train, it must be said that if we're talking about maglev-type monorails, they can be much faster than regular ones. And as the saying goes: "time is money". People are even willing to pay a premium if they can get somewhere faster, and thus, that on itself can be seen as an advantage too, in that specific case. None of these pros are ever delved into, in this vid. Which is a pity. In a balanced and neutral, unbiased vid portraying to impart knowledge and information of a subject, one might expect better, I must say.
If you did the slightest research before spewing bullshit you'd know that the initial plans were to go for underground rails but the land structure in Nasr City and New Cairo turned out to not allow for underground tunnels, and the road structure wouldn''t allow for over ground either obviously
I'm from Seattle and we love our silly old rubber-tired monorail. We actually voted to extend it to the airport once (the stuffy gov't guys refused). Currently we're building out regional light rail. Thanks to the solid-axle steel wheel bogies its elevated stretches all screech 110dB on the curves, and since they follow the curvy existing roads and are always curving, all property near the elevated tracks will have depressed value once the lines reach capacity. Somehow a half-breed of the two might result in a liveable system; but no money for mutts! Federal grants go to one thing or another, not a mix of both.
Oh jeez that has been a clusterfuck. The people voted for 25 miles of track for $1.7 billion and now they are going to only get 23 miles at the current estimate (which goes up every two years pretty much) of nearly 7.5 billion and it will take 11 years to complete assuming ofc it finishes on time which even without the current pandemic public projects especially those in Seattle rarely do.
The Seattle Monorail was built about 1962 to run from downtown to the World Fair site now the Seattle Center. It was intended to be "futuristic" at least as the unusual political thinking in Seattle, where the Democratic Party is Conservative and Socialists serve on the City Council. It wasn't long and it didn't run for 24 hours a day. Its a tourist attraction and I think it is subsidized
#1 cross-conpatibility is a bullshit point. Monorail is an urban transport system, it only needs to care about getting most people INSIDE the city. By this logic you'll call subway/metros stupid as well.
AFAIK the (real) advantages of a monorail are that they can go round tighter corners and up steeper hills than other modes, and the viaducts you have to build are relatively compact. The only place I have seen using monorail to this effect is Chongqing, and it seems to work quite well there (bearing in mind it's only used on certain lines and they also have an extensive traditional metro system).
The one sensible example of a an entire city's conditions setting the specific setting for monorail is Wuppertal with it's suspended monorail. Chongqing, well, along some lines and maybe they could have still been built as elecated metros.
In regards to climbing up steeper hills haven't heard of rack rail have you? (Which arguably is better still than a Monorail) also with going around sharper corners I have you seen the corners of the Chicago Elevated Rail network? Monorails can only go around sharper corners faster but the conventional Rails can go around far sharper corners than a monorail (given the assumption that the network uses trucks on its coaches and or cars
@@sockshandle Yes I have heard of rack rail, but that's slow and only really makes sense if your primary objective is to climb a mountain. If you're building a mass transit line in an absurdly dense and hilly city (Chongqing), on certain lines you need tight, fast cornering, decent hill climbing ability (but you aren't going straight up side side of a hill) and compact viaducts and that's where monorail makes sense. It's incredibly niche yes, but I think with this combination of factors a monorail actually makes sense.
@@mondoman712 okay first the Snowdon Mountain Railway is curved and you can build bridges quite compactly they only chose to build it like that for aesthetics also when you say "Straight up the side of a hill" I feel you are mixing up a funicular and Rack rail networks Rack rail is commonly only used (but the Vitznau-Rigi railway used standard gauge and was rack rail) on narrow gauge systems but still able to be propelled by an engine whereas a funicular can only go straight and is not self propelled also a few rack railways are Transit railways apparently I'll concede on the speed however with conventional Rail (and I looked up Chongqing for this) the top speed of the conventional rail is still faster than the monorail (62 mph to 47 mph respectively) and the average speed is still faster by 6 miles per hour which means arguably there is Higher throughput on the conventional tracks than the Monorail part of the network
I think the monorails in Chongqing actually make some sense, since Chongqing is a quite mountainous city, which requires monorail's ability to climb steep slopes and take sharp turns, and the system has a decent ridership. But surely the limitations do apply, which might contributed to CRT's decision to later build the rest of its network all into just conventional subways.
Interesting stuff. In Uttrakhand, it would be a wet dream to make rail everywhere in Uttrakhand, since it's on The Himalayas. But it would be so freaking cool to see mono rail, metro , etc in Garhwal and Kumaon Himalayas.
It would be great if you also list objectively all the advantages of the monorail, instead of just the disadvantages. So audience can have all the information and make their own minds.
I've always thought monorails were an amusement park thing - moves lots of ppl around the park and it's elevated so you get a fun view of the park while traveling. I have to admit I'd never considered them outside an amusement park context.
Imagine you want to connect two really dense areas in a city, and the land in between those two high density points is full of houses, businesses, and shopping malls, and the traffic in that part of the city is also really bad. Monorails are cheaper than subways or normal elevated rails, they help with road congestion by taking transit off of street level (so no train crossings slowing down car traffic) AND reducing the number of cars on the road (monorail passengers are not driving), they don't cause "building shake" the way subways do, and they also have that "retro-futuristic" look that can actually boost property values instead of damaging them like a lot of normal transit options.
@@cerebraldreams4738 Are they really cheaper? Especially when you consider that you can't run freight on them like you can with conventional rails - and elevated railways are hardly a new concept. The "retro-futuristic" look is nonsense and meaningless. You can make the trains look however you want them to look if you're willing to spend the money on it. The Japanese Bullet Trains look "futuristic" compared to our current infrastructure. Frankly, I'd settle for bridges that don't collapse before worrying about building elevated railways. And ofc there's also the fact that most of the US doesn't really struggle with the whole "space" thing. We have plenty of room for anything we want to build. And in the most concentrated areas where space is at a premium? Underground works much better than above ground because if it's above ground, you're blocking the sun in an area that's already in shadow much of the day in an area that's very built up. There's a reason NYC switched from elevated railways to a subway system, you know.
@@SadisticSenpai61 - New York City also hasn't built any major new subway lines in the past 50 years, and has some of the worst traffic problems in the country, not to mention outrageous living expenses that are almost entirely driven by the sheer difficulty of moving in and out of that city. A monorail could easily link up Manhattan with some of the cheaper areas around it, allowing more people to work in Manhattan while living in a place they can afford, without spending half of their waking hours in traffic jams.
@@cerebraldreams4738 Gee, no new subways in the past 50 years. I wonder if that might be a large part of why the traffic is so bad. It would certainly be much more cost effective to connect to an existing system and service than building a brand new one from scratch.
Not sure why the Sydney monorail was used as an example when its sole purpose was to ferry tourists around the central business district and sightseeing locations on a looping track. There are trains and light rail for day to day commute.
Yeah, a Japanese monorail that actually goes places, has 1:1 scale trains and tracks going both directions would have been a better comparison perhaps.
Here in Kuala Lumpur, they’re used in the city centre but their capacity is small af. You will still have to squeeze in with other people even when it’s not peak hour. They should be used in smaller areas and not in the middle of the most populous city in the country
in smaller areas, it is criminally under used. I'm not even that far from KL in a still big city, and they run empty most of the time. I would def use them, but the lack of stations makes them impractical to driving. in the end, the time to drive to a station + monorail ride + final walking distance, might as well just drive there. sad indeed
While I agree with the logic expressed in this video, you are missing few details that make Monorails the ideal solution, not so much because they are futuristic. In already highly populated cities that may or may not have a Subway system, it can be challenging to lay more tunnels. New Constructions dig deeper, mainly to allow the building to go higher and resist earthquakes. Sometimes the walls of the basement structure are really to the edge of the street, making it very hard to dig tunnels for Underground public transportation. Also, some historic buildings can be affected because of the construction underneath a tunnel, making that tunnel even more expensive. Now you say build a Train, well sometimes the cities can't justify a train system, especially if is no intention of connecting other cities with trains, the only reason why trains are so effective is that it connects major cities allowing the transportation of freight between cities, sometimes stops at the towns in between and this where stops created to give some type of maintenance or support to the principal trains, but trains to go inside the city in between small neighborhood is not economically feasible and practical. Build a Tram, maybe you can say. Yes, a Tram can be considered a light train that can run between neighborhoods having more frequent stops, BUT they depend on the road traffic. If the road has a major roadblock, the Tram is tucked in there, or if the road is already congested, you do not create a way to decongestion the way; you just added another blocker. So there you have an interesting set of limitations, you can't dig because of modern construction requirements, or digging could cause stability issues on historical building on the way, you do not justify a train system because the country has only a few major cities and is not a need to transport freight between them or the system was never built. Hence, trucks do the job as efficiently as trains. You cant build a Tram (light version of trains) because the roads to be served are already super congested. What do you build? a Hyperloop? Flying autopiloted drones? or just set a group of columns in the way and a concrete rail system suspended on top of the congested road, build small passenger station every 1.5 Km with escalators to the sidewalks and get small trains rolling on top of those congested roads, moving people faster and cheaper and maybe reducing the congestion in the roads. So Monorails are a Good Idea in the right situation, and not a stupid modernistic-looking idea.
Thing is What is a correct situation that can't be dealt with conventional tried and tested methods instead of an expensive new technology (also Cities like Chicago and New York City BOTH have passenger only elevated railway networks and those networks comparatively speaking were cheap to build and just as reliable as regular railways (especially if you kept building antique cars fitted with Modern technology (say 1910s El train fitted with modern traction motors and connections) with a Monorail you have two issues first and formost the expense of building the network and all the things it relies on second Compatibility historically speaking the London underground early on used Broad gauge locomotives with standard gauge coaches both however were still compatible with each other a Monorail on the other hand would not be able to pull (or rather carry) standard stock and at each transfer station you'd have to unload and reload every time whereas with a system similar to the old London underground and NYC elevated networks you could assuming it had a dual gauge system operate it more efficiently
To be honest, highly populated cities are a problem in and of themselves. Not having millions of people in the same constricted space is a good idea that precludes any form of adaptation of mass transport.
@@goldenking2046 The perfect reply, as expected. I know the song. As long as you distribute the people enough between cities, and avoid mega centers, and do the same with commerces and industries (where the jobs are), then you're okay, and urban sprawl is not a problem.
Besides building monorail is faster than building subway ... In Egypt we take 5-7 years to build subway line .still two lines under construction in cairo .. so Egyptian government decided to build two monorail lines more than 110 km long in two years
Indeed as a (tourist) attraction a monorail is not necessarily a bad idea but as a mass public transport system it is. It depends what the goal is. If the goal is the cheapest solution that can transport the most people from A to B then monorail is a bad idea. By the same logic one could even argue that putting seats in trains is a bad idea, they cost money, maintenance and reduce the capacity. Since I have seen how one luxurious tramway system in the south of Paris changed a whole area from an almost slum into an attractive area resulting in a significant value increase, I now beleave that a transport system is more than just a people mover. Nevertheless Adam's arguments are important and true in my view. The trick is to find the right balance.
@@8bitorgy most families in Brazil have at least one car, but that’s not the point here. The focus of modern cities is to reduce the number of private vehicles and increase the use of public transportation, also increasing walkability. To build a efficient public transportation system is the same as encouraging people to use them over individual, high-polluting cars. Taking streets back from cars and giving them to pedestrians is also a pretty established goal for modern cities. Specially one as big as São Paulo (one of the largest metropolis in the world)
Now I understand why Delhi Monorail project was dropped. I mean the points you presented totally make me understand the reason(s) for it plus how Mumbai Monorail turned out to be unfeasible that too probably for the same reasons plus the chosen route didn't have enough ridership.
I agree with you and your points. However, a large number of the downsides would come with any sufficiently different system. Radical innovation often breaks compatibility. The thing about monorail, transrapid and Hyperloop etc is that the benefits don't outweigh the downsides.
Exactly, that's why evolution often breaks revolution. A history note here, for a while in the 20th century classical rail systems seemed to have a heavy speed limit, because the train at higher speeds (~100km/h, 60 mp/h) would start "swinging" jumping from left and right track and the danger of this vibrations adding up and leading to derailing. It was obvious that as development goes on rather slow speed limit would not satisfy transportation needs at all. The monorail was for a long time seen as the only way to get to high speeds. However as (classical) train development goes on, we can now compensate much better for these issues with modern tech. Speeds of 200km/h are now very much possible at conventional tracks (almost, the overhead contact line needs more tension at higher speeds and there is a limit on curves for high speeds) but that's it. That's why the monorail lost much of it's relative benefit it once thought to have. BTW: On computers you have it all the time, new tech comes up, vastly superior, but introducing incompatibles. Old tech sees the dangers of getting replaced and put's in lots of innovation and tada gets almost as good, but stays compatible. Like USB3 vs. Thunderbolt. Like SCSI and SATA, like.. But it ain't always true tough. RS232 for example was so bonked, there was no compatible evolution way, it got revolutionized by USB..
@@georgelionon9050 Good points! I'd like to mention though that in computer technology we have a lot of wiggle room, compared to city infrastructure. There are adapters (think of the chain of adapters you can link together to connect an old screen to a new graphics card or vice versa), and in software there are loads of are protocol tunnels, emulators, compatibility layers, file converters and whatnot. I mean all those layers come with costs and increase complexity but it can be used to buy some time. It also brings the danger of clogging everything up after a while. Think of how many old basically 8080 compatible instructions are still present in x64 processors. Or how much Windows 1 and DOS stuff is still in Windows 10. Also that we still don't have IPv6 everywhere and there are still loads of python packages that are still not compatible to python 3.
@@jarrad2000 That modern processors still use mostly the same instructions as the 8086 is indeed an argument for evolution vs. revolution. There have been numerous tries to go to other architectures but mostly failed on backward compatibility. I think the main difference between computing and city infrastructure is in the first one we have very low turnaround times, like 4 years we can expect the majority of devices to have been replaced, while a train you buy for what 30 years usage and the rail system even much longer. (I think most of DOS and Windows 1 are no longer in 10, windows 7 was actually a stronger cut point that cut a lot of compatiblity, in fact most .exe files from back then do not work anymore, at least not without a complete emulation layer) But the Windows 9X series vs. Windows NT series was such a larger cut, where both worlds existed in parallel for quite a while. Ultimately there is not the one true answer, sometimes revolutions do happen that make strong cuts to backward compatibility. But more often than now, improvement of existing infrastructure wins over radical replacement.
Normal rails need flat ground, and the faster your vehicle is going, the flatter it needs to be. Flat ground can be either unavailable, can deform and cave in over time, or is very expensive to engineer. A suspended monorail, for example, can have "3D" paths. Go up and down as needed according to the environment. Suspended monorails can more easily deal with troubles linked to snow and ice.
What annoys me about Musk is that he spends on SpaceX and the Boring Company. Tesla could have a hundred Gigafactories if not for those two other enterprises sucking Musk's money up like a vacuum cleaner!
![How Bankrupt American Cities Stay Alive - Debt [ST04]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XfQUOHlAocY/mqdefault.jpg)
![How Bankrupt American Cities Stay Alive - Debt [ST04]](/img/tr.png)
Just build regular rail, but call it the "hyper-rail" and paint the tracks with luminescent paint, or put RGB leds on there, and voilà, a futuristic marketable rail system for the lovers of fake-futurism.
I'd buy a ticket
Also with solar panels as railroad ties.
@@DartTyler too expensive and useless just compromise and put solar panel on top the the station
or just call it "Gluten Free rail". change the name for every new trent
Is it vegan?
Monorails have one purpose: eventually Tom Scott will show up and make a video about it.
Yeah the cool construction site temporary monorail for hauling material. The big sloppy boy.
This is a good enough reason to have monorails
Monorail systems double as Tom Scott summoning circles
Lyle Lanley also shows up!
Just kidding, pretty sure he was beaten to death on a plane
SO TRUE
If this channel has taught me anything, it's that every form of transportation that sounds cool and futuristic is basically just a shittier version of a train
Who would have thought that a technology that has been in existence for two centuries and is employed throughout the entire world might already have a lot of things going for it?
I do like his videos but he very much talks for one side of the argument in them. A really, really major thing he left out in this video is the actual utility of monorails - for use in extreme gradients. Trains use steel wheels on steel tracks, which gives them very low rolling resistance and thus makes them more efficient than say a truck with rubber wheels that need to grip a surface. This is why railways are so difficult to build in mountainous areas and require lots more tunnels and blasted passages than roads for cars do. A train running on a gradient of more than a few degrees is liable to simply lose its grip and slip backwards.
Monorails don't have this problem but retain a high degree of rolling resistance efficiency, so they're useful for steep gradient changes.
Chongqing is the only city in the world with an extensive, modern, efficient monorail system, and it works very well, as the city is literally built into the sides of two mountains overlooking a river canyon. Monorails have limited usefulness outside that very rare and specific situation, but they do have their uses - this guy makes it seem like they're total nonsense and always pointless.
Unfortunately, in many counties (e.g. USA, Russia) trains are shittier versions of trains: way slower and costly than it theoretically might be.
The issue isn’t that that these cool futuristic transport methods are just shittier trains, it’s just that the ideas are never fully thought out past how they look and what buzzwords they use. They also keep trying to reinvent the wheel so to speak, instead of trying to improve it. Just my take tho. Of course some of these ideas are just plain shit regardless tho
@@kommiekoathanger1418 they’re literally trying to reinvent the vehicle lol
Don’t forget about the positives . Monorails put Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook on the map. They can also inspire an entire town to do a musical number.
But Main Street's still all cracked and broken!
Sorry Mom. the mob has spoken.
What about us braindead slobs?
Ah forget it. It’s more of a shelbyville idea…
Who the hell wouldn't want a genuine bonafide electrified six car monorail!??
@@JaCrispy3060 What'd he say??
You missed one thing: monorails can climb/descend much steeper gradients than conventional rail, making them useful in some industries (eg mining) and in cities built on hills, such as Chongqing
Exception not the rule, and that was his point.
Pretty much the only benefit of monorail... Oh wait... Paris Metro Rubber wheels...
So you really think he is trying to find something positive to say?
And there are not better solutions for transport even there?
@@peterbreis5407 Rubber-wheeled metro
Monorails make sense for one particular circumstance: When you don't have space for a surface light rail, and you don't want the claustrophobic cave-like feeling of a traditional elevated line above you (nor do want to spend for a subway).
This video missed one other big disadvantages for monorails- if there's an emergency, the passengers have no place to go.
Lmao, Sao Paulo has emergency catwalks in the middle of the two tracks, kind of makes the monorail redundant
I feel like we actually need monorails.
Because many cities are overgrown and overcrowded. Monorails can be a way to add one more mode of public transport without massive redevelopment.
Why wouldn’t you just build elevated rail then, like the Docklands Light Railway?
@@thegrowl2210 Depends on the footprint. If they allow sunlight shine through in a narrow European street, why not.
It would be great if the line can be actually connected to existing railway
If a Monorail has an emergency it is inconvenient. If a Hyperloop has an emergency you have a high probability of death
Monorails are okay, but definitely only worthwhile in a few niches. Still they seem pragmatic as hell after looking at those Tesla/Boring Company loops.
I live in the capital city of Indonesia. I was confused why on an elevated track they used regular rail instead of monorail, it seems to consume more space. This video changed my mind.
@@kennethkho7165 yeah especially in jakarta where it's flat as fuck
maybe a bit too flat in fact
monorail can be useful, but only when it's on steep inclines
@@aronseptianto8142 agreed
The underground runway by tesla is awesome! It combines a one way accident prone road with computer operated vehicles. It's like a subway, if it were to be personalized and slower.
@@tylerhorn3712 it's also likely to kill super rich people to make it even more awesome!
they can be used in specific situations. Those things are scenic and light.
The Issue is that if you can build regular rail it's ok but if you cannot well... you must adapt.
Elevating a light rail is harder than elevating a mono. So it is basically that the utility.
Also the degree that can turn is a bit better than regular trains and also the traction that has and it is a lot less noisy.
That is basically perfect for downtown loops between the skyscrapers, because the elevation doesn't occupy too much space creating huge bridges or shadowing the streets making it look like Gotham.
For the rest they are a bad idea.
Yes! In São Paulo, monorails are being installed just where you couldn't build standard train rails, there's just no space available. The other option viable would be subways, but that's way more expensive.
That's what trams are for. Love my home city, Melbourne's tram network.
Yeah, it's like the one at Disney or whatever. Cool, sorta gimmicky but not that bad when you install it in a theme park.
1- Create a non existent problem
2- Sell an expensive solution
Agreed bro 😂 this is the thing which is happening now a day by many people 😂
Modern Capitalism 101
That is what they teach business people to do.
billionaire thinking 101
3- profit
I'm pretty sure monorails were meant for places like Disneyland and not cities.
Literally the only place a monorail system works well is somewhere like Wuppertal, and even then that's because Wuppertal's geography makes a standard metro system basically impossible.
@@RowanSomething Ah, I see you are a person of culture as well
There are cities where they actually make sense and are used commonly.Chongqing has them in several lines and they work fantastically.Due to geological reasons they have a use in these specific areas and are sometimes even cheaper to build or can uave a change of route more easily.
@@RowanSomething German very much?
And Chester Zoo in England
Despite all their flaws, all my cities in cities skylines have several times more feet of monorail track compared to passenger rail or subways, simply because they're the only ones that have integrated road types, and I like being able to see the monorails running around the city.
that's like saying a Minecraft diamond house is realistic
@@bigtitmaster That is a monetary issue.
Just grind diamonds irl
I avoid using monorails in city skylines because they are expensive and inefficient. I have achieved perfect traffic flow and ridiculously low taxes without a single monorail.
Trams are great too
There’s no magic or mystery here - a monorail is just an elevated train. Build it to move 20 people and it will move 20 people. Build it to move 20 million people and it will move 20 million people. The Sydney monorail was never intended to move many people. And the monorails in China move just as many people as the application called for. It’s not like there are some people who for some reason can’t get on the train!
Monorails are for dense, highly populated city applications where ground interference and right-of-way is an issue, and where high-speed is definitely not feasible. They cruise about the city at 40 mph tops - so they don’t need fast switches. And, yes, you’re right, you definitely aren't going to send any old “Bob” out with a sledgehammer to whack on a switch.
Monorails are insanely quiet - like an electric car rolling by your house at 20 mph. The wheels are tucked up inside so sound is virtually nonexistent. Perfect for a city setting.
Like anything, monorails have their application. If they don’t fit the problem, then go with something else. But if you’re talking about transit for a dense and crowded city with no room to sprawl track on the ground, then monorails might be the perfect solution.
Hundreds of thousands of people from all socio-economic statuses ride monorails every day. Monorails futuristic? That's funny, Wikipedia says they've existed since 1820.
Monorails offer transit that’s clean, quiet, and that won’t roll over you while you’re out for a walk. They're perfect for many city applications.
None of these deal with the inherent problem of cost and comparability. Most of the American east coast has the same rail that can be used by commuter, passenger, and freight trains. Anyways, it's pretty rare to see a modern
-planned city with rails just out and about--maybe trolly buses, but even then they are limited in speed in areas with high population, are usually on the same road as car, and they're about as dangerous as normal buses. Most cities already have sprawling tunnel systems for other infrastructure, where they can also put trains, and light-rails can always be elevated if need be--as is the case in a lot of densley packed cities, like Washington DC, London, Pittsburgh, NYC, etc. The only positive I can see is that they can be made electric, which we can do with trains, anyways.
Ultimately, you missed the larger point: this video is not claiming that monorails are futuristic, it's responding to claims that monorails are futuristic.
Chongqing NEEDED a monorail because the city is literally built on top of a mountain and having mono rails running along the cliffs is much easier than conventional rail. Furthermore, there are a lot of elevation changes so having a monorail is also more practical in that regard.
Yeah. Chongqing is the perfect case for monorail. They do need monorail to run specific route.
@@ray6tw Gotham City would be a good example as well
@@ray6tw 60 miles on two routes. Kuala Lumpur also has a monorail and well it sucks.
I don’t get it. Could you explain why it’s better? Easier??
@@bobjob3632 conventional trains struggle in hilly terrain or the same reason they are so great - very low rolling friction. The wheels can't get a good grip on the rails to get moving.
In addition, a conventional train would require a lot of earthwork to flatten the area enough to actually lay the tracks. With a monorail being elevated, that earthwork doesn't need to be completed
That's the problem with monorail designers: they all have such a one-track mind.
boooo
Saw what you did there.👍
ouch.
That one was so bad it hurt.
“Kill yourseellllffff
It’ll only take a minute but you’ll be glad that you did it….”
*Ba dum tishh*
In my city Bangaluru, India they just built a monorail few years ago and are continuing to add additional lines. Trust me it really helps to ease on the road traffic since our city is ranked 2nd slowest in the world for road traffic, and it's totally conjusted, an epic fail for urban road planning. It takes just 35mins to cover a distance by monorail that use to take 1.5hr by road, but with a caveat ofcourse. The time taken and inconvenience caused in reaching the station, climbing up the station and then down again, then reaching the final destination by road transport can take an additional 30mins of give away. But still saving about +-30mins and avoiding the hassle of slow driving and pollution.
In a big conjusted city like mine the land acquisition and land availability is so damn slow that building a regular rail line for everyday commute is almost impossible and would need immense investment coupled with yearly inflation on land acquisition and construction of stations, making its unviable. Also causing further congestion in road traffic since they'll be lots of rail crossings throughout the city, making it very inconvenient and time consuming for people who still continue to travel by road or for those who want to reach these rail stations. Thus making the same rail commute unpopular and worthless. Also keeping in mind that large number of people traveling by road will never reduce even after introducing rail transport within the city, which is due to urban population explosion. As the facitilites in the city increases there will be more money and salaries at disposal. People will buy their own vehicles just for the heck of it because they got money to spend which they neveer had before.
So all in all monorail aren't as bad as you present them to be. Here we have monorail trains at frequency of every 8mins from the station, and these are long with many coaches having high carrying capacity. They're fantastic and functional, but with all the caveats that were noted in your video which are still bearable.
Adam, after watching this video I still feel misinformed about monorails. You spent very little time talking about the benefits of monorails, so for people like me who don't already know why they exist, we only have one side of the story. For people who do know the advantages of monorails, they're going to discredit the video by pointing out all the benefits you failed to address.
What positives are there?
@@partlycurrent I believe they are useful in elevated urban areas or when they are a much cheaper option compared to subways in places where ground rail is not possible
Alright thanks
@@TheCureEnjoyer that is explained in the video. STILL the capacity problems are there.
@@TheCureEnjoyer okay so how about we built a ski lift, but instead of double seated chairs, we connected them and had a tube around them so that they could lift more people up and down with ease... And we could call this cable tram, or aerial tram, it was NEVER done before, this is a billion dollar idea that will revoliutionize travel and even monorails, because now you need a single metal cable (very cheap) and a wheel (single! very cheap) that can drive over it! You don't need to force a whole train onto it either, individual cars can move by themselves! It is like mono-rail, but with pods, and actually works or something.
Another thing to note about the Sydney Monorail: It ran in a small loop around Downtown
it wasn't a commuter monorail like Chongqing's. It was just a tourist trap attraction. So the Sydney monorail only helped the tourism sector, not the locals. It's no wonder the NSW gov got rid of it in favor of light rail
Worth noting that when it was created, it had plans to be an actual means of transport like the trains, train and ferry networks in Sydney at the time. Plans had been in place to expand the network far beyond the loop and as far west as Parramatta, south to the Airport and other spaces in Sydney based on the success of the project after those expansions. It was pretty much an attempt at having another means of public transport that wasn't trams decades after those lines had been pulled up for cars/buses.
Then right before this project was set to open, the NSW government that commissioned the project lost office and was replaced by a guy whom had a hate boner for this (he wanted more improvements to help cars, plus other things not monorails). So all plans for the project pretty much died on the vine the night of the election. The business groups that hated the damn thing in the first place loved hearing about the death of this, as they felt it would ensure business plans and the like could be stolen from their offices by riders whom looked into their offices with the aim of doing this (blinds having not been invented by this point in time, of course, hence doing nothing to stop people seeing all the sex happening*).
So this is why the damn thing was allowed to limp along for a time afterwards. It did have a good start as a means to move workers and the like between some parts of the CBD. However, that only lasted so long, and the numbers started to fall. Partly because of a lack of interest in trying to link it into the rest of the larger transport network within Sydney at the time. Hence why it became seen as a tourist trap/moving billboard.
It did die in the end, but largely because the NSW government wanted to bring in trams, and pointed out the cheap cost of building them over the cost of trying to update and expand the monrail network. After the expected cost blowouts (rumour says to pay to find out what actually is under Sydney, since the maps had been found to be laughably out of date), they got the tramline working and created the newest tourist trap in Sydney. Maybe.
Saying that, not a fan of the Metro system, since it pretty much hits the same limits of the old monrail system. But I give credit for at least not trying to pay for a test track that is meant to fund the rest of the project.
*The blinds bit is a part joke, but it wasn't uncommon to see office workers at it from the monorail.
Final fun bonus. There was a extra station listed as Casino when they built this. The station wasn't built at first, but was in the plans for when it was launched. This was for a planned Trump Casino that was to be built on the site, and meant to offer easy access for guests to locations in and around Sydney. The casino never went ahead because Trump withdrew his plans after the NSW cops wrote a report saying his connections to the Russian mob meant this investment was going to lead to crime issues if it was allowed to go ahead, hence it was cancelled on him. Station was later build, but not the same scale or design.
So as I had commented, it is being quite a bit dishonest to put the Sidney monorail up as an example against any other transit line that was put together competently to serve commuters.
Exactly! and it wasn't practical having a monorail running through the CBD. Yeh, Sydney is now putting back the trams they took out in the 70s.🤦🏽♂️ Glad Melbourne kept their trams, it's so much more convenient to travel around Melbourne without a car.
@@socialistsolidarity They took them out in the early 50's, fyi. ;)
Mostly done by a party from the country that was lead by people whom hated the city and wanted to invest in the country more. Same party (and people) later tried to kill things like the Opera House and just lead to a longer production time/cost over runs doing that.
Saying that, the tram system in Sydney at the time was good, but mostly unconnected networks that generally didn't support one another because the owners didn't want to lose out business to their rivals.
Except the light rail is not working that well either. It turns out there was an actual reason to remove the trams from the streets in the 50's and 60's. The monorail actually did a very good job for tourist traffic it so happens. What we should have invested in was a metro to the south east as what bradfield wanted to do in the 1920's.
Fully agreed. Moscow monorail is working in "tourist mode" for years
And has only 37 passengers permanently every day
Имею ввиду, что только 37 человек каждый день используют Московский монорельс как транспорт, остальные чисто покататься. Статистика взята из числа постоянных оплат картой Тройка.
@@kuanysh_sartay Именно поэтому единственное, что с ним можно сделать - превратить в парк, и провести трамвай до Фонвизинской
@@kuanysh_sartay это шиза дептранса.
@@rerurmaximov очередная шиза дептранса.
Pretty disingenuous to not look at the Tokyo monorail line or the Disney monorail system - places where the system made sense and it's been utilized to a great deal of success - but overall the points raised here are pretty straightforward and correct about why monorails are not utilized in most situations.
They are a great option for some areas indeed
I would like the videos better if he also included facts like these; it would make me feel less like I was missing something due to bias.
But why did disney have a monorail instead of another elevated rail system? Because monorails were futuristic cool looking new concept that fit the aestheric or because they were more functional?
My city of Las Vegas has a short monorail system. It largely sucks. Because it's elevated, no major hotels want it in front of their hotel which would mess up the views. So it's so far away from the hotels no one wants to walk that far. And the other fault is it doesn't go to the airport, the one place it would be useful for. You can thank the cab/taxi lobby for that. That said, if we did have a monorail system that went from the airport all the way down the strip and to downtown, it would be somewhat useful. Instead we have a half assed system.
Would a train not have been more successful?
....
A train would have been more successful and if the monorail finally gets removed, it'll be replaced by an actual train because the monorail is sucking money for less.
The fact that Disney uses a monorail is so irrelevant lol theme parks use all kinds of crap. I don't think blindly copying Disney's monorail is going to do any good.
I like monorails as a within-city transportation. Anything beyond that is much better suited for a conventional rail system.
you can just use metro within city
@@singularityraptor4022 I beg to differ
@@singularityraptor4022 digging underground is lot harder than you think. and what if there isnt enough demand for 6 cars metro?
i live in korea and only seoul and busan subway can exepect those demand. what about other city?, where does not have enough people for heavy rail but still need reliable rail-like transport?
Nearly every application of Monorail can be done better with normal rail.
Those can be elevated too.
@@singularityraptor4022 Metros are great. but digging tunnels is fucking expansive. so the word just does not quite fit.
As a hungarian, I've never would have imagined I'll be proud of the Budapest metro lines one day.
The first subway in Europe was in Budapest
I've been there and you should be very proud of it, it's FUCKING FANTASTIC.
@@dexterantonio3070 What? Lmao, it was in LONDON, which was the first metro system to be built.
@@pol1315 Metro Line M1 in Budapest was the one opened earlier, but not accepted by some because it's only 4 metres underground, despite the London metro having parts that are literally above ground level. Or that's what I've been told and I believed, until I actually Googled it up. Turns out, the London Underground started operation more than 40 years earlier.
Yeah, we Hungarian like to say that we invented the helicopter too
@@timedrfreeman We probably exclude the UK from "Europe" in those metrics, .focusing only on the actual continent.
The reason monorail worked well in Chongqing is that the City is extremely mountainous and is known as a '3D city' in China. It has extreme elevation changes within a very small area so a lot of the infrastructure already need to be elevated. There are bridges connecting the top of a building to the ground floor of another. Surface rail and metro could only serve part of the city. It is one of the very few places in the world where monorails make sense.
Yeah. If for some reason we had more cities in mountains I imagine they'd be more useful, but considering terrace farming only took off on large scales where population densities were already high and rice was probably being grown, that doesn't leave too many options. Especially since even in mountainous regions you'd typically place your city on what little flat land you have.
That's excally why Chongqing also had large cable cars as part of their public transportation system. These are not your regular cable cars, these are capable of transporting 66 people in a single car.
@@Sunny-hc1bf Which one? The most famous one is not part of the public transport system at all, it's purely a tourist attraction.
Wuppertal still has the oldest running monorail in the world, which even emperor Wilhelm II. travelled in. So, it's not exactly about being hyper-futuristic, given it's an old concept. The use case for monorails is there, even though it is rare. Theoretically, you could fit these silent trains neatly into densely build areas even inside buildings since it doesn't require a separate electrical infrastructure on-top of it. It doesn't suffer as much from weather, which makes it an excellent use in colder areas. In addition, it also doesn't require special technologies to combat centrifugal forces for curved regions. That is aside from being able to cover much more steep tracks, which conventional trains only can do with an added cog track in the center. So, all in all, I don't regard it as a fad or special, it's a certain way to organize urban traffic. Not every city was designed with trams in mind like European cities did after the turn of the 20th century. You could argue that high-speed railways also use up unnecessary space and are a bad idea too. They require, for their high speeds anyway, a specially designed track that blocks most of the noise and vibrations, but most importantly doesn't cause dangerous gravel flight, their own tunnel and bridge systems, signal infrastructure and so on.
not if it breaks in cold weather, then good luck repairing that thing and getting out to those mountain sides where these things are suppose to be used, in said cold weather - and yenno trains don't require special centrifugal technology either, and at the end of the day these do NOTHING to address the reliability issue - the only thing these got going for them is steep incline, which btw most mountains are bypassed by existing train networks so its like a non-issue your going out of your way to fix - unless you build a city on a fucking mountain like some idiots in china who thought that'd be a smart idea. (lol, communists man)
@@_Aemse All I'm hearing is "conventional rail came first, therefore monorail bad". Those reliability issues you mention monorails having are basically the same conventional rails had way back when.
@@_Aemse And if a conventional train breaks in the mountains?
Wuppertal is a pretty much one-off example. It wouldn't be viable it pretty much every other circumstance.
As someone who operated both a monorail and a train for a theme park, they are far more problematic then a conventional train, not to mention when compared to a train they feel more one time use so to speak, where if they break down thats it for it till it's repaired, whereas trains can have the engine swapped out and everything still work just fine
Someone at Disney said the monorail almost never breaks down, it did break the one time I was there because of the switch beam but they said it is normally a very reliable system. Not sure how true that was.
@@patricknedz it really does depend on the manufacturer and when it was built, the one I operated was rather old with a fiberglass body and a plywood floor, im sure Disney keeps there's extremely well maintained so it is probably true for them, but we all know railroads don't do the same maintanance as disney
Monorails also aren't that smooth apparently compared to conventional railways. Well because the "rail" is just concrete and not perfectly smooth unlike steel on rails. Its basically like bus but smoother but not as smooth as railway.
@@kornkernel2232 true, the one at my work runs on a steel rail but it wobbles a lot
@@haunted1659 Sounds like the rails needs a maintenance especially if it's sitting on the track bed. it could be the boogie as well that the wheels needs to be refined as well.
I feel like the biggest issue with monorails is many aren’t built to get people where they need to go. They’re built as a cool looking gadget for tourists. And even at that many fail.
Vegas monorail would be awesome if it stopped at the airport, but that would be too convenient
There have been plans to expand the monorail to the airport almost since the beginning the problem is is it will cost money that the monorail didn't have even before the pandemic
Probably the Vegas cab and airport transit companies trashed that. It would be great though.
Would it be worth it from a marginal cost point of view to extend the existing monorail to the airport? Or is Monorail so bad that the existing monorail should be scrapped? Could the existing monorail pylons be retrofitted to take conventional rolling stock? Does monorail tech have an advantage of being cheaper to lay elevated track compared to conventional rolling stock? I noticed that the monorail elevated track is smaller than conventional rail elevated track.
But if the Vegas monorail went to the airport, it would get slammed for capacity...capacity that it has no way of handling.
I used the Vegas Monorail during a convention. The lines just to get on board were horrendous. And that was just over a couple days. I can easily imagine that happening with an airport connection every day.
@@lenojames How long is the wait for a cab ride? It might not matter how lackluster the service might be compared to some really robust metro system like in New York. All it has to do is be more cost effective that whatever system is already in place. And the question of cost is a marginal one. If extending the monorail can offer more options and if it can provide value for even a minority of travelers, then it will benefit everyone by load balancing the other parts of the transportation network.
Fact: Monorail is one of the best Simpsons episodes of all time
Another Fact: Lego Monorails were the best train sets ever released by Lego
hey Dwight
LEGO did lose money on every monorail set they ever sold, which fits with the theme of this video.
@@RalphSavelsberg you only get 50% credit, sorry
I suspect that Conan O'Brien - the writer of the Simpsons' Monorail episode - single-handedly killed the monorail in the US.
@@BegoneJonah sir, if i could, I would buy you a beer right now
I've got a far more fundamental concern with monorails: Where do passengers evacuate in the event of an emergency and how do workers perform track maintenance? Elevated transit systems typically have a walkway between the tracks in opposite directions, but that's a feature that often seems to be omitted in monorail systems.
I love how this video talks about standardization, but then completely skips over the tolerance differences between light rail and heavy rail. I have yet to see any freight train anywhere diverting over light rail urban tracks, or vice versa. It’s mechanically possible, sure, until you get insurance companies involved. And no, Japan’s high speed commuter rail isn’t light rail. Good jorb falling into a polarization fallacy.
Because most light rail systems are also a joke. Cities try to build as much ineffective rail as possible to make it look like they are doing something, but then they only end up connecting park-and-rides, lower frequency than city buses, and are slower than driving. eg Light-rail only ends up being built in places that already has freight tracks in place to reuse. You won't see freight running on protected right-of-ways just like you won't see freight running on street-car's in the middle of the street. Sure the gauge might be the same, but you aren't sending a 2.4km train down a light rail track designed for only a 40m light rail/street car.
That said, usually a "monorail" is the poorer choice over a conventional traction motor subway. In Bombardier's own documentation, they tout a monorail as pretty much being a turn-key light-rail system (eg a new build.) Places that build them, build them in tourism locations because they are quiet (no/low track noise) and unlikely to result in pedestrian intrusions unlike surface rail solutions. You can elevate subways and get the same benefits without having to commit to a single-manufacturer forever. In fact, this is why it's often a better idea to bury or elevate a subway in the first place, as it keeps the street free of traffic-snarling trains of any kind, and allows continuous high frequency operation, instead of having to contend with car and people traffic.
Ultimately the episode of the Simpsons "Marge vs the Monorail" did a lot of long term damage not only to Monorails, but all forms of rapid transit, as it's often cited as a reason to not deploy ANY transit whatsoever, citing them as being a scam or boondoggle. "Why can't you just keep building more (tunneled/elevated) highways" is just as absurd as trying to do that with trains.
Here in California, BART managed to build a conventional light rail without gaining any of the advantages of cross-compatibility by using a weird non-standard track gauge.
Also FRA safety rules don't let you mix light rail and heavy rail on the same track in the US. The reason is a light rail train that got in a collision with a heavy rail train would be crushed.
monorail is a special purpose solution, when there is no room for a conventional surface rail line, i guess its cheaper than building a tunnel in some situations.
How about we just elevate the conventional rail line, i know alot of belgium cities that have already done this like Antwerpen and Roeselare we're some stations are even elevated. Not like Belgium is the only one who does this just look around europe and asia.
Monorail bad
Just put the normal rail line in the air like a monorail, while keeping normal rails
@@flameconvoy7424 elevated normal rail lines look terrible looking from the streets below. They are too wide and block sunlight.
Also they won't flood unlike tunnels.
@@pimmemaster6173 In the city of São Paulo, the biggest in the Americas, monorail was chosen precisely because an elevated conventional rail line would not only be more expensive, but it would also block sunlight and creat what is known here as "efeito minhocão". (in the 70's they build an elevated expressway over a local Avenue and it ruined the Avenue under it, basically becoming a taboo for any future elevated infrastructure). It works fine and also looks very good. Saying monorail is bad just because some youtuber said it is dumb, every situation is diferent and sometimes it can be the right choice.
I'm fairly certain the main purposes of monorails are for two things:
Elevation issues, such as in Chonqing where it's super mountainous and makes conventional rails impractical.
And Space issues, where you simply need more ground space for parks, smaller buildings, or roads and such, and a monorail line can simply go overhead and not interfere too much.
Hence why most cities don't use them, but some rely on them.
The elevation argument makes sense but the space issue falls through.
For space a conventional elevated rail makes more sense as it’s still cheaper for construction and maintenance than a monorail and can connect to other existing conventional rail infrastructure.
@@simonnachreiner8380 there are some other niche cases, f.e. apparently the suspended monorail of Wuppertal, Germany is apparently the most efficient system for their specific circumstances. But it's a highly populated area in a river valley, and it runs pretty much only over the river.
Cabled mountain trains exist.
I live in a pretty dense city and use the monorail quite often for short distance transit. Ngl I don't see them planting a train in the middle of all this
We have an overhead train in our city.... so argument #2 just went out the window.... why would the city build a monorail when a train that can do far more than a monorail can be built and service the needs of the city far better....
Also, the sydney monorail was mostly used by tourists or people just curious about how a monorail works. I’m not aware of many people who used it in their day-to-day lives because you have to leave Street level to go up to get something that only went in One Direction. It mostly just shuffled tourists from circular Quay around to Darling Harbour.
Well Wuppertal in Germany has a suspended monorail for over 100 years. It is located over the local river (called "Wupper") and connects the mayority of the city. The city is populated along the river in a valley (german: "Tal" --> Wupper-Tal, you get it ;) ). So if you have a somewhat elongated urban formation and a small river you can use a suspended monorail is a great idea!
(Well and if you have tons of steel at hand and want to brag about it in front of the german emporer because it is 1901...)
Not even we have monorails
And why should we need one? We already have a tram system with Czechoslovak-built trams and a beautiful subway. Which is also the deepest in the world
I think Ukraine might have a deeper Soviet-built subway.
@@petersmythe6462 The deepest station is in Kiev, the deepest SYSTEM is Pyongyang.
Checkmate
@@petersmythe6462 checkmate
@@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un once again Juche shows its superiority. North Korea still best Korea.
@@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un I have always believed that the deepest metro system is located in St. Petersburg. And this is connected not with civil defense, but with water-saturated soils. In Kiev, the deepest station is under the hill, so the next station is above the ground. Unfortunately, the exact depth of the metro in Pyongyang is unknown, as it is a state secret. Until recently, tourists were allowed only at two stations of one of the lines, now all stations are available to them.
My main problem with monorails is that they're too prone to sabatoge. It takes just one attack to cut off the NCR's access to the New Vegas Strip.
My main problem is that they are ugly.
That's why you've gotta sneak in during the night and disarm the explosives
*Patrolling in the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter*
They attract too many damn legion spies
Didn’t Disneyland had a few pretty ugly monorail incidents as well?
You missed a few things, monorails are a lot safer, they can climb/descend much steeper gradients, they are also great for city centers because they don't block the sky too much and they don't require a lot of space making them ideal for city centers they are lacking in terms of space.
Monorails make sense as internal transportation. I forget where exactly, but I was at some airport that used monorails to take passengers between terminals. The line wasn't built underground, and I guess the airport wasn't big enough to justify building a train? Also there's the opening scene in HL1 where Gordon Freeman uses a ceiling-suspended monorail to travel through different warehouses. If Black Mesa wanted to build a train or bus line, they'd have to sacrifice floor space or waste a ton of money digging a tunnel!
Eh, I knew Adam wouldn't get it. It's more of a... Shelbyville idea.
Sadly despite thev thumbnail i don't think many might actually get this xd
Conan O'Brien's greatest contribution to culture
There's nothing on Earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified six-car monorail.
596 people from Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook disliked this video
@@Randomdive wait...what?
Suspended monorails have one distinct advantage: they come with banking practically built in so you can take tight curves faster. Beam-straddling "monorails" are just articulated busses wrapped around a square road.
Elevating a monorail is actually a benefit. Where you cant add any more width to an existing path like an existing road. Build over the road. Also you can build at ground level. A monorail doesnt need to be elevated They can be built at ground level. They may have their place in a larger system.
Regular rails can be elevated too, and when they pass the section that doesn’t have enough space, they can gradually return to surface level for the rest of the track to save money
Cross compatibility and availability of traditional rails and trains can also reduce cost
So if I can't widen the road where do the pillars supporting the monorail go?
In that magic space we don't have?
In the road? Reducing lanes for traffic? Undoing the benefit? Ruining everything?
@@recklessrickey9513 The Berlin S-Bahn is the one example I know and personally I love it. Almost all stations have its unique charm and seeing the city landscape while conveniently moving across it was one the highlights of Berlin for me
Regular trains can be elevated too. Like Chicago’s train system for example….
@@Buglin_Burger7878 exactly lol.
I live near an elevated subway line and the road it runs over can 100% be a 4 lane road but because of the random pillars its only 2 lanes with a little parking.
Monorails do make sense in some places with very specific characteristics though. Like Wuppertal, Nord-Rhein Westphalia, Germany mostly bc it's a city built lengthwise on the banks of a river along a narrow valley. Only one line is basically enough there, and the elevated railway above the river saves a lot of pedestrian-accessible space. But that's an extremely rare configuration.
There are sensible places for monorails like Wuppertal, where they had to suspend it anyway to put it just obove the river Wupper.
But generally you are far better of with light rail.
Or at Düsseldorf airport the monorail makes sense, bc there is not that much room.
Or as novelty transport in places like amusement parks.
I feel like when places like Bolivia or Yemen develop you could have some sort of commuter system that reaches the mountainous communities in a way that conventional rail can’t. Thin lines bored through mountains and over gullies that reach stations in areas with little room to work with . Yeah.... still capacity would limit it and it’s operations as the main issue with monorails in general. But something to think about, cause monorail is not really used for any commuter services and I see potential in some cases at least
@@michaelloedel750 Funiculars or cableways would work pretty well there. Realistically, the best transport use for monorails is in a controlled environment like an amusement park or for inter-terminal transport at an airport.
Or dense places
The Sydney monorail was always a meme though. It doesn't even service most of the city; it was setup as a glorified tourist trip that was incredibly overpriced.
Yeah I used to live right in the CBD and I didn't know a single person who ever used the monorail. It basically just went around the harbour and that's it
Yep...road to nowhere...need to go from central to quay to dh.
The movie 'Two Hands', they try to outrun bad guys on the monorail to only hvae them waiting outside at the next station, a reality that could be recreated in real life.
@@pt8306 people who championed it always said they would miss it, but when i asked the last time they rode it, they said the same year it opened in 1988! "Yeah I rode it one time in 1988".
Exactly,… you could easily walk the distance between all the areas that the Monorail serviced. There is still a sign remaining near Chinatown for one of the stations. In years to come, people may marvel about what it refers to.
But it worked in Ogdenville and West Haverbrook!
Wuppertal. City in a valley with a river in the middle. The suspended monorail hangs directly above the river. Textbook example of proper use of monorail.
If you have a small industrial town, stretched at a river between mountains without room to grow and you want to connect everything with a one line light rail system, a monorail over the river might be a good idea. Germany has one town like this. It's Wuppertal and after the monorail went into service in 1901 it turned out to work great. No other town in Germany wanted to build one.
The same for parks. It ain't just another cool attraction only. It's over people's head because there is no space on the ground. If I recall Europa Park does this.
@@techpriest4787 There is a difference between public transport and local installations for example people mover between terminals of an airport or show effect in theme parks. I'm involved in discussions like this since more than 30 years and it's not just about one or two rails. It's about elevated, suspended or ground level or underground. It's about steel on steel, rubber on concrete or maglev. It's about different electrical engines or cable.
For most larger systems and networks, the standard solution with normal rails in the normal width of 1435mm wins because it is the most versatile and compatible to existing systems. Good example is the light rail in Karlsruhe that act like a streetcar in the town but you can take a ride that starts at street level, continues as small train on the train-network and ends in a neighboring town again on street level.
Proprietary solutions are great if you need something for a limited length and a smaller number of stations. Typical people movers are used at airports but also in ski regions to get up on the mountains in a lot of cases where normal trains can't be used.
@@Ulrich.Bierwisch they got two monorails. One with only two stations for an open air chil ride. And one with 4 stations that are meant for actual transit at a faster pace across the entire park. And yes, they are not mono rails because of coolness, but because the ground is stuffed with people. There is no space down there. Seems you never bin to a park before. And I thought my parents are junk for not having bought me a gaming console ever...
@@techpriest4787 I said "Proprietary solutions are great if you need something for a limited length and a smaller number of stations."
In a park, where you want to connect a few stations you can build a monorail or something with two rails elevated over the ground. You also can use cable cars hanging in the sky like they did in the Expo 2000 in Hannover. It's a design question and there are several companies offering solutions ready to build. Hanging cable cars are small and offer the best view in all directions. This was ideal for the Expo. They are also best if you need to get steep up on mountains. Elevated Monorail looks very futuristic with the smaller track and the wider train. Theme parks like that. Airports often use standing cable cars that don't need an engine and allow driver-less operation.
As mentioned in the video, the simple, normal rail system has many advantages if you need a network with crossings, joints, partly on the ground, elevated or underground and you want integration into a larger network.
The guys who invented rails 200 years ago found a solution that holds up against all the new ideas until today. We have a few special solutions that are better in special cases but nothing that can do the whole thing including mass transport, heavy freight, high speed and streetcar in one compatible network.
@@Ulrich.Bierwisch you don't seem to know what you are arguing about... My point is simple: If you don't have enough space on the ground then you leave the ground. Not even parks do use mono rails for the shear fun of it. That shit design with its idiotic open air roof top that clearly your mom came up with. It ain't "cool", nor futuristic. It serves to show the park and clear the ground of crowds. The non open air transit monorail is also in the air because there is simply not enough space on the ground. Europa Park got both that's how big it is.
I couldn't care less what is proprietary or not. That's an economical term not an engineering term.
I never really thought of a Monorail as anything other than a neat tourist transport for places like the Disney Parks in Orlando Florida
And even then I imagine an elevated traditional rail would be better in all aspects other than style points.
@@TheSpecialJ11 it’s definitely an interesting question.
come visit our monorail in Cairo it's under construction. the government is making a huge ads for it.
Despite all the negatives, monorails have 2 positives:
They are not cars and they use rail instead of road.
During the 70s an old friend of mine worked on an experimental elevated, levitating monorail project in Cambridgeshire in the UK. The team got it working reliably and it seemed to show great promise.
Then somebody asked the question “How do the passengers get out if it’s on fire?”.
I am told that some of the abandoned elevated concrete trackway is still standing.
Quite easy to solve, actually. Works the same way as elevated rail, you have a side structure for escape, in case it is necessary
The prototype train is on a short section of track at a museum in Peterborough.
"Why monorails are often a bad idea" - here, I fixed it for you. You said it yourself - monorails are rare. But when you explained the downsides of monorail as compared to other rail systems, you forgot to acknowledge that that's precisely why monorails are rare - they are either built where they are needed or someone blundered.
or you can like watch the video and pay attention to the things he says. lol
heres a gold star though, good for you little one - the adults are talking now.
@@_Aemse this is just a "skeptic video", something that can be useful and from which you can get some information, as long as you are not stupid enough to have this video as the only source
@@_Aemse ah and if the "adults" are talking like you, it's better having a discussion about Pokemon cards with a 5 year old
@Guy Basil hush now child
@@_Aemse Try researching the use cases of monorails before trying to act smug in the comments
Actually, a "monorail" can make sense when it is build in smaller cities in mountain areas. Because once the cheapest way to build a new rail track over an existing crowded city is elevated, a suspension railway allows for much cheaper construction compared to elevated light rail tracks.
Unless, of course, you need sheer volume, like in most Asian metropolises. But for some quaint german town like Wuppertal they're not a bad choice
The special case he mentioned in the video: Build it where nothing else makes sense. In the Wuppertal case, it was that the only possible way was above a river.
Or in Chongqing
Yeah but if you’re gonna elevate it. Why have monorail? Just build a regular train. On tracks. Over an elevated platform.
@@dipyaman93 actually, elevated suspended monorails are less expensive than elevated standard rail, and they can take curves much more comfortably and its much quieter. It made sense to build a Monorail in Wuppertal because
a. the line has to be elevated for its entire length ( the city is build in a very narrow valley so very little space)
b. its only one line (the city has the shape of a snake), so no need for track switching.
@@dipyaman93 its not so easy. Also, the Wuppertal monorail was built in the XIXcentury. It opened in 1901.
Growing up in Sydney I was disappointed we got rid of the monorail, though we did have those rubber wheel trains so looking back it makes sense
Internet-Sapien-Sapien do have Forums and such,
and yes, we should discuss Adams Ideas and Elons Failings much,
but what about Politicians?
I mean, even outside of Rallys, its common-thing that Normal-People
get to ask 1+ Question sometimes, in the esteemed Presence
of someone important. Shouldnt we use this and
ask about Adams various videos OR BLEACH BEING POURED ONTO DUMPSTERS so the Homeless wont DARE to eat perfectly-fine Food,
as 'Second Thought' covered in multiple of his videos??
@@nenmaster5218 trains
I’d like to mention the Wuppertal suspended train in Germany. How are you supposed to build a conventional rail over a river without “blocking” the view of the river or just covering the river.
Another mention I would like to make is the Düsseldorf Flughafen H-bahn. It connects the airport train station to parking garages and the terminals. Yeah don’t think a conventional rail system would work in a tight space like that.
Bottom line is monorails have a place but they have to be small places where having a normal train is just too big and expensive
Every Airport I've been (that has a tram, obviously) to uses Bombardier Innovia APM vehicles (except for Washington Dulles, which uses the same system just from a different company), which are essentially just automated busses with a third rail for power. They even use rubber tires.
Systems like the H-Bahn are designed to use automation to be viable just as a small system with few stops. Their use case is when branching a rail system is a bad option and existing trams are far away. Düsseldorf even has a railway branch but operating it just did not make any sence because it means reversing trains.
@@wta1518 H-Bahn is much less disruptive than a Innovia APM Viaduct or even a VAL Viaduct because it's a suspended monorail hanging on a small footprint modular track.
The funniest part is monorail just evokes a retro-futuristic look
Which is awesome! The future remembered!
which is why i think it works for Disney and not really anyone else
@StrumTiger New Vegas actually has a monorail system!
@@chrischampagne9469 brain disruption would be problem
Something is not "a bad idea" simply because there are very limited situations in which it is practical. It simply means you only use it when it's the best option. Monorails are ideal in any situation where you want rapid, moderate capacity transit in a corridor with limited surface space and you don't need a lot of branching lines, if any. Going underground may be too expensive to be justified for a lower capacity line, will take longer to build, or will simply be out of your budget. Building dedicated right-of-way on the surface in a densely populated area may require demolishing a significant number of buildings, especially problematic if they are large and tall buildings, forcing many people out of the very neighborhood you are trying to serve with transit, and putting trains along roadways in mixed traffic slows the train down significantly, and even if you completely replace a road with a train-only right-of-way you are still likely to have to cross many streets, slowing down the train and/or the crossing surface traffic. Building elevated is then the best option for avoiding the above problems, and if it's elevated it might as well be a monorail, which is slightly less expensive than elevated bi-rail and less intrusive to the neighborhood because it takes up less overhead space (a la Chicago L). And if it also looks sleek and futuristic and attracts tourists and provides a good view for riders, that's just a bonus!
Well put. If only Adam bothered to read this...
Yeah there are too many assumptions of absolutes in the video. Like semi-jokingly comparing the toy train to the monorail. Capacity and throughput is not the whole story. I don't care if a cargo passenger train could carry 5x as many people as a monorail per day. They're slow. If it takes longer to take a train from one city to another and costs 5x as much as it does to drive, I might as well fucking drive.
This guy would bash airplanes and rattle off a bunch of efficiency reasons why trains are better but that doesn't mean it's always the case.
"Haha fast, extremely expensive, inefficient speed train go brrrrrr"
I mean you need some click-baiting elements if you want to make a living out of this.
@@F0XD1E Agreed. This guy has too many assumptions and too many opinions he presents as fact. I've seen multiple instances when the logic of his content doesn't quite work out, or when he's missing some key points when drawing broad strokes. A great example was his hit piece on skyscapers, neglecting to mention places with land scarcity which actually need them.
Its like he's a less well researched and highly political version of a good information channel like wendover productions or something. His titles are also clickbait, and makes his content something that applies to some, but not all circumstances.
So, in summary, mono means one and rail means rail.
Still better than the "hyperloop" could work in Miami where you can't dig down deep. Might be a convincing alternative to the hyperloop since the government there wants something futuristic, doesn't mean a normal train isn't better. It's just fair a compromise for the politicians there
Seems strange to sum up the only reason for building monorails as being a techno futuristic thing, when you talk about how they make more sense on lines which are entirely elevated. The Sydney loop you reference was entirely aimed at tourists, offering a elevated vantage point of lots of buildings of interest. The track was also so short, most normal commuters would just walk the distance anyway. It was functionally more comparable to a senic gondala rather than a transit system.
I see two arguments for monorail - potentially quieter than steel wheels on steel tracks, covers less sky. That's about it.
also potentially faster (if maglev) and specially on curves (due to banking)
@@thespanishinquisition4078 not so fast if they are in urban areas. And the inter city maglev being built is doomed from start, it will loose so much money that probably will ended converted in conventional high speed (the line is built with that provision "just in case").
A maglev does not need to be monorail.
You can build them on top of rivers like Wuppertal Schwebebahn in Germany (if you don't have the space to build a regular train line on land). Very situational, but an argument nonetheless.
It's cheaper to build than elevated heavy rail. That's a huge advantage this video missed on.
There's also the fact monorail can climb steeper gradients than regular trains.
i think monorails are a good idea for small lines and small space, but not to replace conventional train
Monorails do work in Japan. While I agree with all the problems listed AND the fact that passengers have nowhere to go in case of an emergency, Japan is willing to do what other countries are not, and that's regular maintenance.
Furthermore, they have a slight issue called earthquakes which makes subways somewhat impractical in small to medium sized cities where an elevated monorail can fill that role in places where light rail is impossible to fit and the costs of running, maintaining and installing seismic protective measures are ludicrous when compared to monorails + the amount of passengers they're projected to transport. If we're talking about them being built in downtowns like tokyo or sydney where they're designed for tourism, then yes, they're a bad idea. They're essentially useless.
This is the first of your videos where I agree with the problems, but disagree with the fundamentals. They were designed to fill a need where building a subway and light rails are impractical or downright impossible to build (be it regarding cost or space available), not to be used on a mainstream way or to replace railways all together. And yes, there are places where even a bus has difficulty reaching, as I'm sure everyone knows if they rack their brains up a bit.
EDIT: My point about earthquakes was not about them being able to withstand them or not. I'm sorry for not clearing that out. Tunnels do, indeed, have a much, much easier job at handling earthquakes.
The point I tried to highlight with the earthquakes is that in a country where seismic activity is not a matter of when, but how hard, it is sometimes much cheaper to build monorails than a subway in mountainous regions with medium to low density population (or high density cities, for that matter) as well as being much easier to maintain and/or repair than tunnels, while keeping the safety standarts. Besides, there's never guarantees that a tunnel doesn't collapse, even though the chances of that happening in tunnels that are constantly monitored are next to zero.
My points essentially boil down to what I said: "They were designed to fill a need where building a subway and light rails are impractical or downright impossible".
I didn't understand the part about earthquakes
Tunnels can handle earthquakes better than above ground structures can.
Monorails work in Japan because they climb steeper gradients than conv. rail which is very useful in mountainous countries like Japan.
One correction - Japan doesn’t build subways in smaller cities not because of the earthquakes. In fact, subway stations/tunnels are among the safest places you can be during an earthquake. It sounds kind of counter intuitive but the trick is the stations/tunnels move together with the earth, unlike the building that only has the foundation in the earth and the rest of the structure becomes “unsupported” from the sides/top.
@@Mastakilla91 Also quieter, so if you have a city already and decides to build an elevated metro, monorail would be a good idea
I'm getting the impression that Adam likes trains. I too like trains.
Is- is this an asdf reference?
@@asmodeuslol7904
ahahahah same thought
*me turning behind to see if there are trains coming nearby*
You missed a opportunity: Wuppertal. The Schwebebahn (literal translation "hovering railway") is not really a monorail in the sense of what everybody immediately pictures in their head.
It is actually a "mono" "rail", a single track rail and the trains are hanging on it like a barn door. Due to Wuppertals challenging topology they had no other choice to use the 3rd dimension.
Since it now "hovered" (German: "schweben") above peoples heads they simply called it that way: Schwebebahn.
It is a vital piece of infrastructure and even transports in the current pandemic 33k people a day (12mil/year) that is half of what is usual. And if its broken down the city is a mess 😑
Monorails can make sense in confined spaces where it would be difficult to build a regular railway. For example in Wuppertal, Germany. The monorail runs along a valley that's often already filled with things, going below is difficult as a river flows through the valley, so going above is a good solution. it serves about 80.000 people daily, which doesn't sound much compared to big metros until you realize that the city only has 355.000 people. It even runs extra trains when a football game happens and is one of the main ways to visit the stadion. On top of that, it's a big tourist attraction.
yay, i think this was from a tom scott video (i assume, given that you mentioned all the points that he's mentioned)
Thailand already have two Monorail lines under construction and planned to open this year.
Serving as metro lines running around and through outer parts of Bangkok.
Slimmer profile of tracks and trains proved useful for narrower routes and it won't look packed in the areas that the line running through,something that BTS didn't have it can get dark and tighty along BTS lines in central Bangkok.
Less environmental impact to motorists and people around and below as well.
Cheaper than try to dig tunnels to make subway as well but they have to move people in and out somehow without overeliant on cars that's why Thailand chose monorail.
Ladyboyland, Ew.
All of this results in the one spot where monorails make sense: Inner cities or any other area where space is limited and underground construction isn't viable for one reason or the other.
Meaning if the rail had to be elevated anyways and additional transpotation capacity is needed the only alternative is a monorail.
Also elevated monorail tracks let through a lot more light to the road below than regular elevated trains. Problem of course still, people actually need to walk all the way up.
@@Luxalpa How so? What does a regular elevated line have that blocks out more light?
@@jeffbenton6183 two rails, with wooden slats in between, and generally more support structure.
@@flameconvoy7424 Stupid question, but is that a matter of "old vs new", or would choosing what design to use depend on factors - like weather/climate, etc?
@@DanknDerpyGamerless than 20 years old. We have very mild temperatures, comparable to America but with cooler summers so I doubt climate plays a factor. If anything, more extreme temperatures would incentives the larger more rugged looking frames of old transit lines
I went on the Sydney monorail many times back in the day, but not because it is effective public transport (I couldn't care less where it ended up), but because it's so cool! Going between all the buildings and over all the touristy places isn't just super fun from the inside, but also looks great to people down on the ground, and really does give off a futuristic vibe, even if it is otherwise pointless. I think that is quite a flaw in this analysis, to only look at it from a transport point of view. For that reason, I will always like monorails, it was a travesty that they removed the Sydney one.
Shouldn’t the primary purpose of expensive transportation systems be transportation? I get that aesthetics and experience should be a factor but probably a smaller factor
Ew monorails look poop elevated rail is infinitely better.
@@cubeofcheese5574 Absolutely not! If a city already has a good metro, bus, and tram system, then the addition of a monorail is not for effective transport, but a nice ride, like a helicopter tour, or the seaplane, just more affordable. The transportation factor of the monorail was far less of a concern, and it only really took you to the touristy spots, because that's the demographic in theory. Also, I don't remember it being too expensive, as I don't think I would've used it as much.
@@Bryzerse the problem with this idea is that cities don't build monorails as pure tourist experiences, and even when they do, it's at the expense of other forms or transport. The Sydney monorail essentially blocked the expansion of light rail in the inner city for decades and it's removal allowed for the creation of a cheaper and more affordable replacement that serves far more people in Sydney than the monorail ever could
When you don't have space on the ground for conventional train tracks, but still need to build a line; if the volume of passengers isn't going to be very large, then monorails make perfect sense. Their infrastructure is much cheaper to build than elevated train tracks and of course even more so if compared to underground train tracks.
But just build an elevated track anyway since incase volume incrase you have something that is expandable
@@ryanovr8 indeed, but here monorails start to make more sense: they can be narrower, so for weaving between skyscrapers they are a better idea. IIRC elevated monorails cost less to build than elevated birail, they are quieter than trains, they can go up steeper gradients than trains
monorails have very, very few use cases where they make sense, but there are still situations where they make more sense than trains. Does that mean they're a bad idea? Not at all, it just means there are very few situations where they make sense
In what situation do you not have space on the ground? We’re talking about cities. Repurpose a major road for the rail line.
You missed the point. We should be getting cars out of cities, not designing around them.
@@aidanivesdavis Hey I don't want to sound rude but your question makes absolute no sense. If it were to make any sense at all, there wouldn't be any tunnels or elevated tracks for conventional train systems already, since they are much more expensive than tracks on the ground.
@@plazasta Can't you make conventional rail narrower by only having aisle seats and making it longer so it doesn't lose capacity?
The first reason of cross compatibility where you took Japan as an example falls flat, as Japanese rail systems are mostly isolated from one another based on company, track, gauge etc. Individual lines are often isolated from another making such bypasses or switches impossible. (This example does work in other countries such as in Germany).
Similarly doesn't work in India where Metros and RRTS run on meter gauge while entire nation's conventional rail infrastructure is broad gauge. Thing is, when you have a system as large as a few 100 km per city, you can afford to have rolling stock, maintenance infra, etc separate from the conventional systems.
While true, Japan does things one way compared to other nations based on circumstances. Not all rail systems are as isolated as the ones seen in Japan; for example, in LA, there's a project proposed known as the Sepulveda Pass project, and one of the options involved a monorail and the other heavy rail. The issue here is that LA already has two heavy rails, one of which is currently just a two-station spur for the other line, which is also being extended. Unlike in Boston, where each heavy rail line has a different structure and loading gauge, the LA lines are built to the same standard. The project is projected to be completed by the 2050s, but the issue with going with monorail is that it adds additional costs in terms of training for maintenance and operation. Furthermore, assuming that LA would buy their third generation of rolling stock at the time, LA Metro wouldn't be able to order additional cars to serve the Sepulveda Pass.
I just came back to watch this video since two monorail trains just crashed here in São Paulo. Thankfully, there were no passengers. The line was completely shut down for the whole day, and even the roads under the tracks needed to be closed since pieces were simply falling from the trains. Dangerous, inefficient idea.
As someone who lived in Sydney city during that period, one bad idea was missed. SAFETY!. Having a system with stations elevated off the ground meant small crime was a regular occurrence. Drunken fight, assaults etc.
What was different about that crime compared to the crime that occurs in underground stations or surface stations?
@@Sashazur yes.
The diagram of how much space a monorail takes fails to show the bed of a conventional rail.
It also don't cover foundstions for monorail elevated track.
Walt Disney: Monorails and PeopleMovers are the future of mass transit
The future: *....I'm gonna tell him*
Back then, Tomorrowland was about envisioning a future that could potentially be. Compared to the Tomorrowland that is now more so based on a fictitious view of a future. Though not to entirely fault them...it's harder for Tomorrowland to almost entirely remain nonfiction science and not have it become quickly outdated in only two decades these days. Granted, the one in Disneyland needs some serious refurbishment work; especially after the disastrous 1998 "renovation", but that is for another time.
In regards to the monorail itself, it replaced what was essentially just a scaled down and almost useless version of the Disneyland Railroad known as the Viewliner. While it was at first just a small joy ride, it was later expanded to actually hook up to the Disneyland Hotel and eventually Downtown Disney. If anything, it has been more successful in the first two Disney parks than outside of them. It helps the one in Disneyland adds to the scenic view around the Matterhorn (even if they have to potentially construct a new version in the 2030s) and the lagoon.
The past: No no... Let him find out on his own it will teach him
@@tidepoolclipper8657 Hasn't Tomorrowland been replaced with Star Wars-land? I wouldn't know, I haven't been there in awhile.
PeopleMovers sounds like the 5y/o description of public transportation lmao
Good points, and yet a bit one-sided. You give all of the cons, but none of the pros - unless you think there are absolutely no pros, but then you should have made this clear. Also, as an aside, mixing some Musk-bashing in there doesn't make for a good argument, it rather makes the arguments seem dubious and biased.
So to give some counters to balance it a wee bit more in a nuanced way:
- Monorails have an advantage over conventional rails in mountainous environment. That's because they can climb or decent with much steeper inclinations, and slopes or elevations are much less of a problem for them than for conventional railways.
- They have a cost-advantage over underground railroads as far as the capital cost is concerned, which I missed in your whole comparison about the metro and monorails. While you've pointed out the costs of building an elevated structure on the ground for monorails, you ignored the much greater cost of digging a tunnel. In essence, you were cherry-picking which elements - such as capacity - you wanted to highlight so as to give a more favorable impression of the metro-system.
- Where the ground prices are extremely high (think Tokyo) the cost of an elevated metro-system is even cheaper than that of regular on-the-ground railwaysystems IF you want to build completely new tracks. This is, because you only have to 'disown' or seize (aka; the state or city has to compensate for taking private property) small pieces of land (for the pillars), in stead of far more large swats of land to build a complete railsystem on the ground. Capital costs can be even 5 times higher, in the latter case.
- The above advantage for monorails becomes even greater if there IS an alternative to seize property even less by making use of existing non-train infrastucture, such as roads. Since it's elevated, monorails can be used to be put on top of major roads, and thus allow dual use of the same area. This is not possible with classical railways, since those would simply replace the existing roads (since they are on the ground as well), OR you'd need to dig tunnels under those roads, making the whole thing exorbitantly more expensive.
- Speed. While this is highly dependent on which monorail you compare with which classical train, it must be said that if we're talking about maglev-type monorails, they can be much faster than regular ones. And as the saying goes: "time is money". People are even willing to pay a premium if they can get somewhere faster, and thus, that on itself can be seen as an advantage too, in that specific case.
None of these pros are ever delved into, in this vid. Which is a pity. In a balanced and neutral, unbiased vid portraying to impart knowledge and information of a subject, one might expect better, I must say.
5:30 this is a false equivalency if I've ever seen one.
“And this is of course something that no sensible company would do” *laughs in Egypt*
Oh no
Tell me more about it, mr. expert in finances and geostructures
If you did the slightest research before spewing bullshit you'd know that the initial plans were to go for underground rails but the land structure in Nasr City and New Cairo turned out to not allow for underground tunnels, and the road structure wouldn''t allow for over ground either obviously
*sweats in São Paulo*
I'm from Seattle and we love our silly old rubber-tired monorail. We actually voted to extend it to the airport once (the stuffy gov't guys refused).
Currently we're building out regional light rail. Thanks to the solid-axle steel wheel bogies its elevated stretches all screech 110dB on the curves, and since they follow the curvy existing roads and are always curving, all property near the elevated tracks will have depressed value once the lines reach capacity.
Somehow a half-breed of the two might result in a liveable system; but no money for mutts! Federal grants go to one thing or another, not a mix of both.
Oh jeez that has been a clusterfuck. The people voted for 25 miles of track for $1.7 billion and now they are going to only get 23 miles at the current estimate (which goes up every two years pretty much) of nearly 7.5 billion and it will take 11 years to complete assuming ofc it finishes on time which even without the current pandemic public projects especially those in Seattle rarely do.
The Seattle Monorail was built about 1962 to run from downtown to the World Fair site now the Seattle Center. It was intended to be "futuristic" at least as the unusual political thinking in Seattle, where the Democratic Party is Conservative and Socialists serve on the City Council. It wasn't long and it didn't run for 24 hours a day. Its a tourist attraction and I think it is subsidized
I think you missed Wuppertal, its nowhere near the ridership numbers of the other monorail system, maily because its in a city with
#1 cross-conpatibility is a bullshit point. Monorail is an urban transport system, it only needs to care about getting most people INSIDE the city. By this logic you'll call subway/metros stupid as well.
AFAIK the (real) advantages of a monorail are that they can go round tighter corners and up steeper hills than other modes, and the viaducts you have to build are relatively compact. The only place I have seen using monorail to this effect is Chongqing, and it seems to work quite well there (bearing in mind it's only used on certain lines and they also have an extensive traditional metro system).
The one sensible example of a an entire city's conditions setting the specific setting for monorail is Wuppertal with it's suspended monorail. Chongqing, well, along some lines and maybe they could have still been built as elecated metros.
Yes, this is the correct application of monorails. Because they are rubber tired they can climb steeper inclines than steel wheels on steel rails.
In regards to climbing up steeper hills haven't heard of rack rail have you? (Which arguably is better still than a Monorail) also with going around sharper corners I have you seen the corners of the Chicago Elevated Rail network? Monorails can only go around sharper corners faster but the conventional Rails can go around far sharper corners than a monorail (given the assumption that the network uses trucks on its coaches and or cars
@@sockshandle Yes I have heard of rack rail, but that's slow and only really makes sense if your primary objective is to climb a mountain. If you're building a mass transit line in an absurdly dense and hilly city (Chongqing), on certain lines you need tight, fast cornering, decent hill climbing ability (but you aren't going straight up side side of a hill) and compact viaducts and that's where monorail makes sense. It's incredibly niche yes, but I think with this combination of factors a monorail actually makes sense.
@@mondoman712 okay first the Snowdon Mountain Railway is curved and you can build bridges quite compactly they only chose to build it like that for aesthetics also when you say "Straight up the side of a hill" I feel you are mixing up a funicular and Rack rail networks Rack rail is commonly only used (but the Vitznau-Rigi railway used standard gauge and was rack rail) on narrow gauge systems but still able to be propelled by an engine whereas a funicular can only go straight and is not self propelled also a few rack railways are Transit railways apparently I'll concede on the speed however with conventional Rail (and I looked up Chongqing for this) the top speed of the conventional rail is still faster than the monorail (62 mph to 47 mph respectively) and the average speed is still faster by 6 miles per hour which means arguably there is Higher throughput on the conventional tracks than the Monorail part of the network
I think the monorails in Chongqing actually make some sense, since Chongqing is a quite mountainous city, which requires monorail's ability to climb steep slopes and take sharp turns, and the system has a decent ridership.
But surely the limitations do apply, which might contributed to CRT's decision to later build the rest of its network all into just conventional subways.
Interesting stuff. In Uttrakhand, it would be a wet dream to make rail everywhere in Uttrakhand, since it's on The Himalayas. But it would be so freaking cool to see mono rail, metro , etc in Garhwal and Kumaon Himalayas.
Monorails put Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook on the map.
I don't travel in things I can get trapped in with no way out quick. Airplanes, monoarails, pods, coffins, bloody rockets, you know.
It would be great if you also list objectively all the advantages of the monorail, instead of just the disadvantages. So audience can have all the information and make their own minds.
The video is called “Why Monorails Are a Bad Idea”. He’s sharing his formed opinion and made no secret of it.
I've always thought monorails were an amusement park thing - moves lots of ppl around the park and it's elevated so you get a fun view of the park while traveling. I have to admit I'd never considered them outside an amusement park context.
Imagine you want to connect two really dense areas in a city, and the land in between those two high density points is full of houses, businesses, and shopping malls, and the traffic in that part of the city is also really bad. Monorails are cheaper than subways or normal elevated rails, they help with road congestion by taking transit off of street level (so no train crossings slowing down car traffic) AND reducing the number of cars on the road (monorail passengers are not driving), they don't cause "building shake" the way subways do, and they also have that "retro-futuristic" look that can actually boost property values instead of damaging them like a lot of normal transit options.
@@cerebraldreams4738 Are they really cheaper? Especially when you consider that you can't run freight on them like you can with conventional rails - and elevated railways are hardly a new concept.
The "retro-futuristic" look is nonsense and meaningless. You can make the trains look however you want them to look if you're willing to spend the money on it. The Japanese Bullet Trains look "futuristic" compared to our current infrastructure. Frankly, I'd settle for bridges that don't collapse before worrying about building elevated railways.
And ofc there's also the fact that most of the US doesn't really struggle with the whole "space" thing. We have plenty of room for anything we want to build. And in the most concentrated areas where space is at a premium? Underground works much better than above ground because if it's above ground, you're blocking the sun in an area that's already in shadow much of the day in an area that's very built up.
There's a reason NYC switched from elevated railways to a subway system, you know.
@@SadisticSenpai61 - New York City also hasn't built any major new subway lines in the past 50 years, and has some of the worst traffic problems in the country, not to mention outrageous living expenses that are almost entirely driven by the sheer difficulty of moving in and out of that city. A monorail could easily link up Manhattan with some of the cheaper areas around it, allowing more people to work in Manhattan while living in a place they can afford, without spending half of their waking hours in traffic jams.
@@cerebraldreams4738 Gee, no new subways in the past 50 years. I wonder if that might be a large part of why the traffic is so bad. It would certainly be much more cost effective to connect to an existing system and service than building a brand new one from scratch.
have you even been living on the same planet as us others? hilarious how you couldn't know they were used in so many places around the world
Disney world is the only place on earth where a monorail makes sense.
Adam Something is the great Counter-Smartass of RUclips.
Not sure why the Sydney monorail was used as an example when its sole purpose was to ferry tourists around the central business district and sightseeing locations on a looping track. There are trains and light rail for day to day commute.
Yeah, a Japanese monorail that actually goes places, has 1:1 scale trains and tracks going both directions would have been a better comparison perhaps.
@@C.I... Like Tokyo Monorail from Haneda Airport to Hamatsucho, 17.8km.
Here in Kuala Lumpur, they’re used in the city centre but their capacity is small af. You will still have to squeeze in with other people even when it’s not peak hour. They should be used in smaller areas and not in the middle of the most populous city in the country
It is slow and crowded, a big mistake was done by the government. Jakarta almost makes the same mistake, thank god it is cancelled.
in smaller areas, it is criminally under used. I'm not even that far from KL in a still big city, and they run empty most of the time. I would def use them, but the lack of stations makes them impractical to driving. in the end, the time to drive to a station + monorail ride + final walking distance, might as well just drive there. sad indeed
Just another day of regular trains being the answer to everything.
but, but, but, the song! monorails have a song!
While I agree with the logic expressed in this video, you are missing few details that make Monorails the ideal solution, not so much because they are futuristic.
In already highly populated cities that may or may not have a Subway system, it can be challenging to lay more tunnels. New Constructions dig deeper, mainly to allow the building to go higher and resist earthquakes. Sometimes the walls of the basement structure are really to the edge of the street, making it very hard to dig tunnels for Underground public transportation. Also, some historic buildings can be affected because of the construction underneath a tunnel, making that tunnel even more expensive.
Now you say build a Train, well sometimes the cities can't justify a train system, especially if is no intention of connecting other cities with trains, the only reason why trains are so effective is that it connects major cities allowing the transportation of freight between cities, sometimes stops at the towns in between and this where stops created to give some type of maintenance or support to the principal trains, but trains to go inside the city in between small neighborhood is not economically feasible and practical.
Build a Tram, maybe you can say. Yes, a Tram can be considered a light train that can run between neighborhoods having more frequent stops, BUT they depend on the road traffic. If the road has a major roadblock, the Tram is tucked in there, or if the road is already congested, you do not create a way to decongestion the way; you just added another blocker.
So there you have an interesting set of limitations, you can't dig because of modern construction requirements, or digging could cause stability issues on historical building on the way, you do not justify a train system because the country has only a few major cities and is not a need to transport freight between them or the system was never built. Hence, trucks do the job as efficiently as trains. You cant build a Tram (light version of trains) because the roads to be served are already super congested.
What do you build? a Hyperloop? Flying autopiloted drones? or just set a group of columns in the way and a concrete rail system suspended on top of the congested road, build small passenger station every 1.5 Km with escalators to the sidewalks and get small trains rolling on top of those congested roads, moving people faster and cheaper and maybe reducing the congestion in the roads.
So Monorails are a Good Idea in the right situation, and not a stupid modernistic-looking idea.
Thing is What is a correct situation that can't be dealt with conventional tried and tested methods instead of an expensive new technology (also Cities like Chicago and New York City BOTH have passenger only elevated railway networks and those networks comparatively speaking were cheap to build and just as reliable as regular railways (especially if you kept building antique cars fitted with Modern technology (say 1910s El train fitted with modern traction motors and connections) with a Monorail you have two issues first and formost the expense of building the network and all the things it relies on second Compatibility historically speaking the London underground early on used Broad gauge locomotives with standard gauge coaches both however were still compatible with each other a Monorail on the other hand would not be able to pull (or rather carry) standard stock and at each transfer station you'd have to unload and reload every time whereas with a system similar to the old London underground and NYC elevated networks you could assuming it had a dual gauge system operate it more efficiently
To be honest, highly populated cities are a problem in and of themselves. Not having millions of people in the same constricted space is a good idea that precludes any form of adaptation of mass transport.
@@Simboiss Suburban sprawl: "are you sure about that?"
@@goldenking2046 The perfect reply, as expected. I know the song. As long as you distribute the people enough between cities, and avoid mega centers, and do the same with commerces and industries (where the jobs are), then you're okay, and urban sprawl is not a problem.
Besides building monorail is faster than building subway ... In Egypt we take 5-7 years to build subway line .still two lines under construction in cairo .. so Egyptian government decided to build two monorail lines more than 110 km long in two years
being from wuppertal, i need to disagree.
Always good ... even if you have to eject an elephant mid-ride... .
@@NuclearSavety nah, thats a benefit! free meat.
The Wuppertaler Schwebebahn is absolutely crazy
Indeed as a (tourist) attraction a monorail is not necessarily a bad idea but as a mass public transport system it is. It depends what the goal is. If the goal is the cheapest solution that can transport the most people from A to B then monorail is a bad idea. By the same logic one could even argue that putting seats in trains is a bad idea, they cost money, maintenance and reduce the capacity. Since I have seen how one luxurious tramway system in the south of Paris changed a whole area from an almost slum into an attractive area resulting in a significant value increase, I now beleave that a transport system is more than just a people mover. Nevertheless Adam's arguments are important and true in my view. The trick is to find the right balance.
That only works because of a very specific set of geographical conditions (narrow valley, route above the river etc.)
But it is fun!
I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!
in bangkok the sky train works 1. if you can afford it 2. if you lucky enought your start and destination are near the line.
Ah, so that's why one of Caesar's spies are trying to blow up the Monorail line to the New Vegas Strip
You need to see the line 15 of São Paulo/Brasil metro. It's a monorail that makes sense
Ppl in sao Paulo can't afford cars
@@8bitorgy yeah, you're right. This is the main reason why the government built the, offering to poor neighborhoods good public transportation
But most of the Brazilian families can afford at least one car.
@@vitorporto3603 Problem solved then, screw the rest...
@@8bitorgy most families in Brazil have at least one car, but that’s not the point here. The focus of modern cities is to reduce the number of private vehicles and increase the use of public transportation, also increasing walkability. To build a efficient public transportation system is the same as encouraging people to use them over individual, high-polluting cars. Taking streets back from cars and giving them to pedestrians is also a pretty established goal for modern cities. Specially one as big as São Paulo (one of the largest metropolis in the world)
Now I understand why Delhi Monorail project was dropped.
I mean the points you presented totally make me understand the reason(s) for it plus how Mumbai Monorail turned out to be unfeasible that too probably for the same reasons plus the chosen route didn't have enough ridership.
this is literally the “just build a fucking train” channel
I agree with you and your points. However, a large number of the downsides would come with any sufficiently different system. Radical innovation often breaks compatibility. The thing about monorail, transrapid and Hyperloop etc is that the benefits don't outweigh the downsides.
Exactly, that's why evolution often breaks revolution. A history note here, for a while in the 20th century classical rail systems seemed to have a heavy speed limit, because the train at higher speeds (~100km/h, 60 mp/h) would start "swinging" jumping from left and right track and the danger of this vibrations adding up and leading to derailing. It was obvious that as development goes on rather slow speed limit would not satisfy transportation needs at all. The monorail was for a long time seen as the only way to get to high speeds. However as (classical) train development goes on, we can now compensate much better for these issues with modern tech. Speeds of 200km/h are now very much possible at conventional tracks (almost, the overhead contact line needs more tension at higher speeds and there is a limit on curves for high speeds) but that's it. That's why the monorail lost much of it's relative benefit it once thought to have.
BTW: On computers you have it all the time, new tech comes up, vastly superior, but introducing incompatibles. Old tech sees the dangers of getting replaced and put's in lots of innovation and tada gets almost as good, but stays compatible. Like USB3 vs. Thunderbolt. Like SCSI and SATA, like.. But it ain't always true tough. RS232 for example was so bonked, there was no compatible evolution way, it got revolutionized by USB..
@@georgelionon9050 Good points! I'd like to mention though that in computer technology we have a lot of wiggle room, compared to city infrastructure. There are adapters (think of the chain of adapters you can link together to connect an old screen to a new graphics card or vice versa), and in software there are loads of are protocol tunnels, emulators, compatibility layers, file converters and whatnot. I mean all those layers come with costs and increase complexity but it can be used to buy some time.
It also brings the danger of clogging everything up after a while. Think of how many old basically 8080 compatible instructions are still present in x64 processors. Or how much Windows 1 and DOS stuff is still in Windows 10. Also that we still don't have IPv6 everywhere and there are still loads of python packages that are still not compatible to python 3.
@@jarrad2000 That modern processors still use mostly the same instructions as the 8086 is indeed an argument for evolution vs. revolution. There have been numerous tries to go to other architectures but mostly failed on backward compatibility.
I think the main difference between computing and city infrastructure is in the first one we have very low turnaround times, like 4 years we can expect the majority of devices to have been replaced, while a train you buy for what 30 years usage and the rail system even much longer.
(I think most of DOS and Windows 1 are no longer in 10, windows 7 was actually a stronger cut point that cut a lot of compatiblity, in fact most .exe files from back then do not work anymore, at least not without a complete emulation layer) But the Windows 9X series vs. Windows NT series was such a larger cut, where both worlds existed in parallel for quite a while.
Ultimately there is not the one true answer, sometimes revolutions do happen that make strong cuts to backward compatibility. But more often than now, improvement of existing infrastructure wins over radical replacement.
Normal rails need flat ground, and the faster your vehicle is going, the flatter it needs to be. Flat ground can be either unavailable, can deform and cave in over time, or is very expensive to engineer. A suspended monorail, for example, can have "3D" paths. Go up and down as needed according to the environment. Suspended monorails can more easily deal with troubles linked to snow and ice.
@@Simboiss that is not correct. High speed trains in France and Germany climb steep grades on some lines.
Elon Musk: you think monorail are bad!? Hold my beer!
- Vegas loop
What annoys me about Musk is that he spends on SpaceX and the Boring Company. Tesla could have a hundred Gigafactories if not for those two other enterprises sucking Musk's money up like a vacuum cleaner!
@@Moses_VII tesla is just his money machine to support his 'ambition' to go to mars
True.. the rail running electricity is another level👎
@@Moses_VII and have more pained worker's for poorly build cars? Or money for short lived satellites?