M II A II R II K
Senior Member
It doesn't matter what tech is used or what you call it. Whether it has high capacity for riders and how fast it travels is all that matters!
As much as this idea humors me, it dosen't make any sense. At all.
The problem is that there is no practical way to get a monorail underground. I cannot find a single example of an underground monorail system.
As much as this idea humors me, it dosen't make any sense. At all.
The problem is that there is no practical way to get a monorail underground. I cannot find a single example of an underground monorail system.
Awesome. I didn't know of that system.
But I still stand by my belief that LRT is far better for Toronto. There is no denying that with LRT we'll have far greater operational flexibility and vehicle choice for approximately the same price.
Awesome. I didn't know of that system.
But I still stand by my belief that LRT is far better for Toronto. There is no denying that with LRT we'll have far greater operational flexibility and vehicle choice for approximately the same price.
Agreed. LRT is a far better technology choice than monorail for Toronto.
Using heavy rail On eglinton would require the reconstruction of the RTs stations regardless, they are currently nowhere near 150m long.
Who said heavy rail have to use 150m trains...
Why go heavy rail which limits surface options, and then limit your capacity to smaller trains? If capacity wasn't the driving force behind the heavy rail decision then why would LRT in a tunnel have been so inadequate?
If Toronto wants a slower, less reliable, and more expensive to run system like LRT then that fine. The point is that for both the Eglinton and SRT, Toronto is getting an at grade system at a subway price.
As much as this idea humors me, it dosen't make any sense. At all.
The problem is that there is no practical way to get a monorail underground. I cannot find a single example of an underground monorail system.
The issue with monorails is that a monorail would have to ride several feet above the bottom of the tunnel to accommodate the tracks. This means that the tunnel may need to be wider, adding additional construction costs. On the other hand, light rail can run mere inches off the bottom of the tunnel. I know you're probably going to point out that light rail vehicles would require a pantograph. The good thing is that the pantograph can be compressed so that power lines can run inches above the vehicle. An LRV can also use a third rail for power collection, eliminating the need for a pantograph.
A monorail only makes sense if you're building a 100% above grade line. It cannot be used underground, or in a ROW and is inefficient for at-grade use. This makes it totally inappropiate for a city like Toronto and is probably why the technology has failed to get widespread adoption in real (not Disneyland) mass transit systems.
To nitpick, Chongqing's Metro system is an underground monorail. But you're right, adopting another form of technology would make absolutely no sense for Toronto whatsoever.
If Toronto wants a slower, less reliable, and more expensive to run system like LRT then that fine.
A 120m train every 3min would give the same capacity as 80m train every 2min or 60m train every 1.5min, but the latter only require a station half as large.