“The Monorail is the most offensive structure to sore our city since the Cahill Expressway coast off Sydney Harbour!” Clover Moore, Future Lord Mayor of Sydney (1988)
Oh dear, now you've done it. The monorail enthusiasts will hate you for the rest their lives, and will explain why you're wrong.
Thing is, you're absolutely right. Now where I live happens to be in the top 10 of most densely populated countries and territories in the world (Malta), and public transport consists of buses. And they're not very good. As a result, there is a very high rate of car ownership, which is just a very, very bad combination.
So, there needs to be a mass public transit system, and essentially there are three options: a metro system, a tram network, or a monorail. A metro would cost around €6bn over 20 or so years. Considering that GDP is €15bn per annum, and net European Union subsidies are around €1bn per annum (for everything), that's a staggering amount. A tram network would not be viable, because the roads are already too congested.
So, a monorail. Some think that this would be the solution, because of the footprint and because it doesn't interfere with other traffic. But they're blind to the obvious disadvantages of monorails. For example, they can only go to the periphery of towns and villages. And if you've never been to Malta: all these towns and villages have zero space between them. The only way to know that you're in a different local council is a sign. About half the island is one large urban area. Therefore, a monorail could only get to the edge of them, where most people don't live. Add to that the well-known disadvantages of monorails, and it's obvious why this would never work.
The one small criticism that I have about this video is that you show photos of the Wuppertal Schwebebahn, but you don't go into detail. The Schwebebahn is quite successful, and is often hailed as a shining example of a monorail. But Wuppertal has very, very specific conditions that made the monorail the only viable alternative.
Wuppertal (literally, Valley of the Wupper river; the German word "Tal" is the basis of the word "dollar") is a narrow valley with steep hillsides. Every square inch has been used up. Buses had insufficient capacity and got caught in traffic. Rail traffic wasn't viable because of the steep gradients. The only available place to build a mass transit system was over the river, and that's what they did.
So yes, in Wuppertal it works, because it had to work. But it doesn't really work anywhere else, at least not as well as conventional rail transport.
I mean I can still see the asthetic benefit of Monorails instead of elevated light rail. You get way more light at streetlevel with this minimalist self-supporting rail compared to a structure for light rail. And whilst efficiency, interchangeability and switches remain an issue – if you set up a public transportation network in a dense, urban area and you are forced to go for something elevated everywhere than a monorail might be better option from an urban design perspective. But obviously only if you don't already have a light rail system. But yeah, this is niche.
3:59 "As well as this, most urban rail systems use standard gauge tracks which allows them to connect to other rail networks…" Then shows a Melbourne tram that uses broad gauge LOL
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth Like a genuine, bona fide Electrified, six-car monorail What'd I say? Monorail What's it called? Monorail That's right! Monorail Monorail Monorail Monorail I hear those things are awfully loud It glides as softly as a cloud Is there a chance the track could bend? Not on your life, my Hindu friend What about us brain-dead slobs? You'll be given cushy jobs Were you sent here by the Devil? No, good sir, I'm on the level The ring came off my pudding can Take my pen knife, my good man I swear it's Springfield's only choice Throw up your hands and raise your voice Monorail What's it called? Monorail Once again Monorail But Main Street's still all cracked and broken Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken Monorail! Monorail! Monorail! Monorail! Mono, d'oh!
From what I grasp, monorails can work, but they have no compelling advantages over conventional trains in 99% of cases. The advantages about being elevated is entirely possible with a conventional train as well, though conventional trains have the option to do either within a given system. The one and only advantage I can see of monorails is that in entirely elevated systems they cast a far smaller shadow than a double-track conventional rail – the roads under Chicago's "L" feel almost like a tunnel. Resort places like Las Vegas wouldn't want that. Though I could imagine designing a conventional rail with a sort of open-deck design that would let far more light through between and around the rails, which would still come out ahead of monorails.
I know this comment might not even be seen by you, but could you do a video on Electric trains disvantages? I am a little tired of seeing just videos endeusing them and not bringing a fair argument for them.
The Wittenberg monorail that appears on many of these pictures was neccessitated by the very tight valley in which the city is located. Its design allows it to “fly” over the river in a tight valley where there was no more soace for additional infrastructure. And while being a hanging monorail, it uses many standard railway parts for easier maintenance.
This discussion reminds me of a similar topic in spaceflight.
The general public has this bizarre sentiment, that traditional rocket are dumb and old fashioned. They see the space shuttle and similar spaceplane concepts as obviously superior, even though the complete opposite is true.
Like monorails, spaceplanes capture the public imagination of what the future is – but in reality are way more complicated, expensive, and even more dangerous in some ways.
Yet in both instances, many in the public shake their heads, very sure of themselves that a stock railway or a basic "old fashioned" rocket is somehow going backwards.
As expected, the video is making it too simple, reality is more complex.
Most bad monorail Systems were/are bad not because they are a monorail, but because they're route was designed badly and because of bad integration with the rest of the transit network.
There are several very successful monorails in the world that move thousands of people daily and which are well integrated
Some points presented in this video are valid for outdated monorail system. Newer system being built currently are cheaper and require less space than normal train system, while having the same capacity and speed. Bangkok is currently building 60 kilometers of monorail, and it's scheduled to open next year. The monorail also has steeper climb, and that made going up and around existing elevated roads and rails easier.
I agree with your point, it's matter of fact. I wouldn't consider the Wuppertal floating railway system a monorail though, because it is a railway line with one track. Only difference is that a normal train rests on it's wheels, and the Wuppertal one is suspended on it's wheels. These are steel wheels similar to railway wheels, and so are the tracks. The wheels have flanges on both sides of the wheel. And the Wuppertal one actually makes sense because it is suspended for the large part over a narrow river valley flanked by mountains. So it's existence is dictated by geography. And it happens to be nearby the German steelmills. So it's in fact the only place in the world where it make sense to to have an urban transportation service like that. So, it doesn't count. The rest you show us are mainly gadgetbahns
A good chunk of the argument in this video is, "Monorails are not widely established, so they don't have the advantages of being widely established." Would the author be shocked to learn that the same could once have been said about dual-rail trains?
Many monorail problems can easily be solved they are potentially very useful in the right places, we just havent learned to build them cost effectively, most monorails are built like light rail and with big heavy slabs of concrete wich is too heavy and expensive to replace rail. if you had something the size/ weight of a rollercoaster car with a cabin the size of a car with seatbelts on cheap steel tracks held by relatively inexpensive pillars (wich could easily be produced by the same industries that make normal rails) trough big crowded city centers, and even above already existing buildings, its really flexible as a concept especially compared to standard railroads, wich need losts of space and land wich is one of the most expensive resources in Cities, so they could be extremely useful where normal rail simply doesnt fit and could potentially go really fast.
lets be honest… most of the reasons given here are exactly because they are new or rather, non-standard as systems go… my general feeling is that the monorail was less efficient, being necessarily heavier to be safe *(per person capacity); but is a very good solution for places with tight spaces and steep turns… it is an over-ground type system, which means tunnel width is not relevant, what is, is turn radius and support width required. basically, they are an expensive way to make routes, for a highly urban environment
I respect your opinion on monorails. I loved riding the monorail at Walt Disney World resort in Kissimmee, Florida.
“The Monorail is the most offensive structure to sore our city since the Cahill Expressway coast off Sydney Harbour!”
Clover Moore, Future Lord Mayor of Sydney (1988)
nice video
Mono…..D’OH!!!!!
Oh dear, now you've done it. The monorail enthusiasts will hate you for the rest their lives, and will explain why you're wrong.
Thing is, you're absolutely right. Now where I live happens to be in the top 10 of most densely populated countries and territories in the world (Malta), and public transport consists of buses. And they're not very good. As a result, there is a very high rate of car ownership, which is just a very, very bad combination.
So, there needs to be a mass public transit system, and essentially there are three options: a metro system, a tram network, or a monorail. A metro would cost around €6bn over 20 or so years. Considering that GDP is €15bn per annum, and net European Union subsidies are around €1bn per annum (for everything), that's a staggering amount. A tram network would not be viable, because the roads are already too congested.
So, a monorail. Some think that this would be the solution, because of the footprint and because it doesn't interfere with other traffic. But they're blind to the obvious disadvantages of monorails. For example, they can only go to the periphery of towns and villages. And if you've never been to Malta: all these towns and villages have zero space between them. The only way to know that you're in a different local council is a sign. About half the island is one large urban area. Therefore, a monorail could only get to the edge of them, where most people don't live. Add to that the well-known disadvantages of monorails, and it's obvious why this would never work.
The one small criticism that I have about this video is that you show photos of the Wuppertal Schwebebahn, but you don't go into detail. The Schwebebahn is quite successful, and is often hailed as a shining example of a monorail. But Wuppertal has very, very specific conditions that made the monorail the only viable alternative.
Wuppertal (literally, Valley of the Wupper river; the German word "Tal" is the basis of the word "dollar") is a narrow valley with steep hillsides. Every square inch has been used up. Buses had insufficient capacity and got caught in traffic. Rail traffic wasn't viable because of the steep gradients. The only available place to build a mass transit system was over the river, and that's what they did.
So yes, in Wuppertal it works, because it had to work. But it doesn't really work anywhere else, at least not as well as conventional rail transport.
I mean I can still see the asthetic benefit of Monorails instead of elevated light rail. You get way more light at streetlevel with this minimalist self-supporting rail compared to a structure for light rail. And whilst efficiency, interchangeability and switches remain an issue – if you set up a public transportation network in a dense, urban area and you are forced to go for something elevated everywhere than a monorail might be better option from an urban design perspective. But obviously only if you don't already have a light rail system. But yeah, this is niche.
Well we found out who watches Tom Scott haha 😂😂
3:59 "As well as this, most urban rail systems use standard gauge tracks which allows them to connect to other rail networks…"
Then shows a Melbourne tram that uses broad gauge LOL
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine, bona fide
Electrified, six-car monorail
What'd I say?
Monorail
What's it called?
Monorail
That's right! Monorail
Monorail
Monorail
Monorail
I hear those things are awfully loud
It glides as softly as a cloud
Is there a chance the track could bend?
Not on your life, my Hindu friend
What about us brain-dead slobs?
You'll be given cushy jobs
Were you sent here by the Devil?
No, good sir, I'm on the level
The ring came off my pudding can
Take my pen knife, my good man
I swear it's Springfield's only choice
Throw up your hands and raise your voice
Monorail
What's it called?
Monorail
Once again
Monorail
But Main Street's still all cracked and broken
Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken
Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!
Mono, d'oh!
From what I grasp, monorails can work, but they have no compelling advantages over conventional trains in 99% of cases. The advantages about being elevated is entirely possible with a conventional train as well, though conventional trains have the option to do either within a given system. The one and only advantage I can see of monorails is that in entirely elevated systems they cast a far smaller shadow than a double-track conventional rail – the roads under Chicago's "L" feel almost like a tunnel. Resort places like Las Vegas wouldn't want that. Though I could imagine designing a conventional rail with a sort of open-deck design that would let far more light through between and around the rails, which would still come out ahead of monorails.
I know this comment might not even be seen by you, but could you do a video on Electric trains disvantages?
I am a little tired of seeing just videos endeusing them and not bringing a fair argument for them.
Have you heard of Vancouver's skytrain and I would be curious what your thoughts on it if it's better or worse than a monorail
If you ask me, urban rail seems more like the future
The Wittenberg monorail that appears on many of these pictures was neccessitated by the very tight valley in which the city is located. Its design allows it to “fly” over the river in a tight valley where there was no more soace for additional infrastructure. And while being a hanging monorail, it uses many standard railway parts for easier maintenance.
"Mono- D'oh!"
Monorails are not in the approved vehicle list for transporting dignitaries because the one in Disneyland once kidnapped the president.
Mono = one
Rail = rail
Another mark against monorail systems: Their complete bankrupting and devastation of the town of North Haverbrook.
😉👍
This discussion reminds me of a similar topic in spaceflight.
The general public has this bizarre sentiment, that traditional rocket are dumb and old fashioned. They see the space shuttle and similar spaceplane concepts as obviously superior, even though the complete opposite is true.
Like monorails, spaceplanes capture the public imagination of what the future is – but in reality are way more complicated, expensive, and even more dangerous in some ways.
Yet in both instances, many in the public shake their heads, very sure of themselves that a stock railway or a basic "old fashioned" rocket is somehow going backwards.
Las Vegan here, can confirm that monorails are trash tier
Makes sense considering there is an entire episode of the Simpsons where the town is tricked into buying a dodgy monorail 🚝
Don't worry abt the song. It got stuck in my head as soon as I saw this video on your list.
😂😖
I personaly dont even see the wupprtal bahn as a monorail since it uses actuall geographical reason, the valley river
I promise not to spruik monorails
the simpsons ruined the monorail's reputation
As expected, the video is making it too simple, reality is more complex.
Most bad monorail Systems were/are bad not because they are a monorail, but because they're route was designed badly and because of bad integration with the rest of the transit network.
There are several very successful monorails in the world that move thousands of people daily and which are well integrated
The monorail is the definition is: “He a little confused, but he got the spirit”
Monorail! Monorail! MONORAIIIIIIIIIL!
Some points presented in this video are valid for outdated monorail system. Newer system being built currently are cheaper and require less space than normal train system, while having the same capacity and speed. Bangkok is currently building 60 kilometers of monorail, and it's scheduled to open next year. The monorail also has steeper climb, and that made going up and around existing elevated roads and rails easier.
I agree with your point, it's matter of fact. I wouldn't consider the Wuppertal floating railway system a monorail though, because it is a railway line with one track. Only difference is that a normal train rests on it's wheels, and the Wuppertal one is suspended on it's wheels. These are steel wheels similar to railway wheels, and so are the tracks. The wheels have flanges on both sides of the wheel. And the Wuppertal one actually makes sense because it is suspended for the large part over a narrow river valley flanked by mountains. So it's existence is dictated by geography. And it happens to be nearby the German steelmills. So it's in fact the only place in the world where it make sense to to have an urban transportation service like that. So, it doesn't count. The rest you show us are mainly gadgetbahns
MONORAAAAIIILL!!!!
The ring came off my pudding can
sorry mom the mob has spoken
A good chunk of the argument in this video is, "Monorails are not widely established, so they don't have the advantages of being widely established." Would the author be shocked to learn that the same could once have been said about dual-rail trains?
This video is bad and stolen.
Many monorail problems can easily be solved they are potentially very useful in the right places, we just havent learned to build them cost effectively, most monorails are built like light rail and with big heavy slabs of concrete wich is too heavy and expensive to replace rail. if you had something the size/ weight of a rollercoaster car with a cabin the size of a car with seatbelts on cheap steel tracks held by relatively inexpensive pillars (wich could easily be produced by the same industries that make normal rails) trough big crowded city centers, and even above already existing buildings, its really flexible as a concept especially compared to standard railroads, wich need losts of space and land wich is one of the most expensive resources in Cities, so they could be extremely useful where normal rail simply doesnt fit and could potentially go really fast.
lets be honest… most of the reasons given here are exactly because they are new or rather, non-standard as systems go…
my general feeling is that the monorail was less efficient, being necessarily heavier to be safe *(per person capacity); but is a very good solution for places with tight spaces and steep turns… it is an over-ground type system, which means tunnel width is not relevant, what is, is turn radius and support width required.
basically, they are an expensive way to make routes, for a highly urban environment
I enjoyed them at Disney World, at least
Who else thought of the Simpsons episode when this appeared in my feed