The Monorail Alternative

jim678 · Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 6:35 pm

Just saw on Seven news that they are planning to make a monorail from geelong up to tullamarine airport and down to frankston. Said it was one idea chosen from over 2200, including the east-west tunnel idea. Maybe they are actually going to go ahead with this.

AlanIde · Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:03 pm

I have a list of what I thought were the most significant of the 2,058 submissions at http://www.newaustralia.net/significant_subs.html.

The Transrapid one stands out so the media have grabbed it. Most of the others are 1 MB scans of 2-page letters that take ages to download and say nothing much.

The problem for Transrapid is the lack of easement. You could use the freeways and tollways for the Geelong - Airport - Southbank part. The best you could do after that is Kings Way - Queens Way - St.Kilda Road - Brighton Road - Nepean Hwy to get to Frankston.

The Transrapid track would pretty much cover Queens Way and the tram lines down St.Kilda Road. The maglev beams are almost as wide as the vehicles - 3.7m)

The two small ALWEG monorail beams going over the trees as I propose are one thing but the big Maglev track is another thing altogether.

A better bet for Transrapid would be to go from the CBD to Dandenong via the M1.

Of course you could put it all in a tunnel - for about half the state GDP:-)

I can't see it happening.

ZH836301 · Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:08 pm

Who is "they" Jim?

ZH836301 · Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:28 pm

AlanIde, let's play spot the difference:

Wiki

AlanIde · Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:26 pm

ZH836301, the main difference is the span. Your second photo shows the Tokyo Monorail crossing a canal so the pillars and beams are neccesarily larger. The span, the risk of collision with shipping, the unstable base of mud and seismic considerations mean the beam and pillars are very chunky in this photo.

For most of the line the span is not so demanding. See these pictures for example: http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/TokyoTrees.html . Also look at the short Seattle monorail: http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Seattlepix2.html .

I believe monorails that looked like the below would be acceptable to most Melbournians - except you of course!

ZH836301 · Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:48 pm

And we really have a heap of parks you could run monorails through.

taitfan · Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:03 pm

You guys are missing the point, this monorial idea could solve many transport problems, all you need to do is turn the land underneath into toll roads to cover the additional costs. The monorail could then replace the heavy rail giving an expanded rail and road network. Rolling Eyes

Sounds to me that somone has been reading too many archived aus.rail threads...

AlanIde · Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:16 pm

ZH836301, the other fantastic thing about elevated conventional rail is how well it broadcasts the sweet music of steel wheels on steel rails. This would surely delight and entertain the residents along its entire route, especially at night and in the early morning.

By contrast the rubber tyres of the Hitachi ALWEG monorails (like Tokyo) would be depressingly silent against the concrete beam; you would hardly even know it was there.

Taitfan, you forgot that my submission (www.newaustralia.net/East-West-Monorail.pdf ) has a list of conventional rail projects I want to see built with the savings from building monorails instead of a rail subway. This is all about finding ways to extend the conventional rail network. No conventional rail would be replaced with what I propose.

ZH836301 · Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:17 pm

You're dreaming if you think you'll ever see one of those vile beams down a CBD street.

spottyrahr · Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:23 pm

I would fight to I'm blue in the face to keep away any sort elevated transport going anywhere near the CBD. The bridges between Flinders and Southern X are bad enough.

mjja · Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:41 pm

Rubber on concrete vs steel on steel? Sounds to me like it would cost a lot more to maintain. And what happens when a subsequent government or operator tries to cut costs by "delaying" the replacement of worn wheels? Don't forget this is Victoria, where you can run trains at 80km/h on track that would be considered unsafe for a 15km/h siding in Europe.

Happy Gunzelling and remember, "Go by rail!"

Michael Angelico
President, Smart Passengers Inc
(My opinions are my own unless specifically stated.)

TheLoadedDog · Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 1:17 am

TheLoadedDog · Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 1:24 am

nadnerb_2000 · Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:49 am

I'm going to dredge this one up - because this subject is one I have a lot of interest in.

First off - in relation to The Monorail Society. You have your monorail detractors (such as the honourable TLD™, above) - but they aren't nearly as crazy as the supporters.

I joined TMS for a brief period of time. Their level of bias was absolutely sickening. They basically say no to everything except monorail - personally I think that is a majorly flawed view, you need the right tool for the right job against the "common enemy" - the car.

Anyway - I do have some level of support for monorails. Not the vonroll garbage that Sydney and the Gold Coast sport - proper ones. I've been on the Tokyo and Las Vegas monorails, amoung others and I honestly believe they have their place.

The main problem with them - of course - is the track is ugly. There is no getting around it - that monorail beam going through Sydney - despite what TMS says - is ugly and only getting uglier as they don't bother painting the thing often enough. This will always be a barrier to people accepting them.

Other problems - most monorails do not have an adequate egress system in the event of an emergency. Case in point: A couple of years ago, the Seattle monorail caught fire. Passengers could only be evacuated by bringing the other train alongside the burning one, and transferring them across. Clearly that option is not reliable - Sydney doesn't have double track, your trains have to be close enough together, you have to get them there on time and hope like heck the power supply doesn't die. While monorails have an exceptional safety record, some I think are disasters waiting to happen - Sydney's especially. Others - such as the Las Vegas one - have an emergency walkway between the two tracks and therefore solve this problem, but of course this adds to the profile of the monorail beam.

However, there are a number of positives:

- There are systems which have comparable capacity to current Aussie heavy rail systems
- They achieve 99.9% reliability figures, and similar on time running figures
- They can be very easily automated
- They are relatively cheap and quick to construct

and so on.

I think monorail could - and should - be used in Australian cities. The best place to put them? All those freeways we've been building are generally dual carriageway. A high speed monorail down the centre of a motorway or freeway, I think, makes sense. Basically - monorails are ugly - so put the track somewhere where it won't stick out like a sore thumb. The Las Vegas one basically goes behind most of the casinos. The Tokyo one is partially in tunnel and largely follows freeways. None of this garbage where you're putting one down the middle of a heritage listed bridge like in Sydney!

As for the track size debate. Anyone looked at the aerobus? http://www.aerobus.com/home.html

Even cheaper than monorail and with a much smaller track profile. But stats on speed and capacity appear to be sketchy. So - to be safe - let's build this one: http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Niles.html

Procrastinators Unite! . . . just after I do this . . .

Knowitall · Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:03 am

I said it before and I'll say it again

Fix what we have before adding another mode of public transport

Banned