Talk:Monorail

message: I'm personally surprised nobody has added a section about the satirical views on the monorail as a mode of transportation presented in the Simpsons.
:That is covered at Marge vs. the Monorail.--MrFishGo Fish 16:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand what the big deal is with monorails.  Why one rail?  Could someone add an "Advantages" section?  --Spikey 16:36, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose taking fiction as a primary information source has the merit that we can prove what we damn well please by the expedient of simply making up the facts. Gordon Vigurs 12:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added. Jpatokal 01:51, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You would be surprised to learn how much of the primary sources end up being fiction through archaeology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.242.9.3 (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Monorails in Simpsons/fiction

message: Removed quite a bit of vandalism from the page (or maybe monorail really is used as a colloquial term for any form of pidgeon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.37.164.130 (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Its secret project I assume (no info on it in press or internet). Testing suite is situated in Gostomel, Ukraine, about six kilometers from Antonov airport. Actually, it's ready (the vehicle). I got exclusive picture of it. Black Phoenix 16:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a project by Antonov Design Bureau.--Nixer 17:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is clearly NOT a monorail as it runs on two beams, not one. --Dygituljunky (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New monorail is being built in Ukraine 

message: Could anyone specify on this? As a Brazilian, I've never heard of monorail around here. The only thing
that ressembles monorail would be Porto Alegre's "aeromovel"
There is a monorail at the Barra Shopping Center in Rio. The last time I was in Brasil it was not working (2002).
There was a monorail in Amapá. Not to be confused with the conventional two-rail system that still operates in a different part of the state (http://www.estradadeferrodoamapa.com/). I recalled reading, years ago, in a book, in a library, about a monorail up there, and here at last are some references:
http://www.academia.edu/988768/O_Massacre_de_Amapa_a_guerra_imperialista_que_nao_houve
http://books.google.com/books?id=QiU6AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=amapa+monorail&source=bl&ots=Pl_K_bfUYD&sig=XawtmMW3l9RRkpcO_fXyTtiBKyQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DM40U5qaCPHKsQSK3YLQBg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=amapa%20monorail&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=kXkwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=cassipore+river&source=bl&ots=W0lOUHEQy0&sig=RPanNnmSY0A7R2hWJ7ysNnRjE2g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Zc42U4PCEc6psAS66IGoCw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=cassipore%20river&f=false
To summarize: a French enterprise, hauling gold with mules, operating near what is now the French Guianan border. I wish I could offer more. Apparently monorails were fairly common utilities in the 19th century, so much so that hardly anyone thought they required much discussion, or photography. I'd guess that where there's a lot of thick vegetation, nothing but human muscle available to remove it, and the freight carried by such a railway is dense and will never complain of uncomfortable accommodations, one rail is obviously easier than two.
The only stated advantage I can find for monorails is for the suspended type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monorail_history#Early_developments), whose pylons can be built of varying heights over uneven ground to ensure shallow or no gradients in the rail itself. But that probably wouldn't apply to Amapá, which is not an especially hilly place.
Jahutter (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazilian Monorail 

message: This article has too many images. At this point they clutter the page and detract from the real information.  Anyone have any suggestions for which ones should go? --Hetar 04:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I nuked everything except three: the initial KL Monorail pic, because it's pretty and it shows off a straddle-beam monorail; the historical gyroscope monorail, because it's old-school and weird; and the Schwebebahn, because it's historically important and a good example of a suspended monorail. Jpatokal 04:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel a the Shanghai maglev picture should also be included since it looks cool and is unique. However I'm uncertain whether the maglev can actually be considered a monorail. If it can, then a picture should be added, if not it should be removed from the article! Nil Einne 14:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the references I added, it is NOT a monorail. I agree that maglev always comes up with the discussion of monorails. So I just added some carefully worded text that should pass muster with the edit nazis. Mea (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images 

message: SAFEGE trains are wider then their track, see eg. .  This is even clearer in SAFEGE's descendant, the Mitsubishi suspended monorail. Jpatokal 16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to employ the term track with reference to a monorail system. There is a guideway with a single rail. On a suspended (type I) monorail it makes even less sense to me. The car is dangling down, looking nothing like a train on its track. Mea (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAFEGE 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Dream out loud 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Infobox Monorail}}]]

message: I suspect this is a weird reference to personal rapid transit.  If there are actual PRTs out there using monorails, let's hear it, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Jpatokal 07:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, SkyTran is complete vaporware and doesn't need more than a sentence in the article. Jpatokal 02:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pod monorails 

message: The former transport at Birmingham Internation Airport was a Magnetic Levitation Cabin Transport. Not a monorail.
There was a Von Roll monorail at the Merry Hill shopping centre, providing a very useful transport within the site - but alas not beyond its boundary. It closed when the shopping centre (only) was sold, and eventually was dismantled and sent off to Brazil. When I can find exact facts (dates, etc) I'll edit the page. Simon
Citytransport.info 13:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most if not all maglevs are also monorail systems. That said, I'd be open to removing maglev systems from the list though. Jpatokal 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Midlands (England) 

message: I have no idea what this is supposed to mean:
* Adding extensions by diverging the track is more expensive because of the linear nature of the track itself.
I've removed it until it can be rephrased. Jpatokal 03:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: Segway scooters stay upright by intermittent momentary actuation of electric motors fixed to flywheels, the divergence from vertical being detected by gyroscopes. It is possible to use such reaction wheels to build a monorail vehicle, the reaction wheels having their axes in line with the roll axis of the vehicle, to keep the vehicle upright.
Reaction wheels have long been used to change the orientation of satellites.
Monorails are cheaper to build than conventional railways. A monorail need weigh no more than a conventional rail vehicle, because the bogeys weigh less. This reduction in weight offsets the weight of the reaction wheels and electric motors.
David Erskine
58.168.40.76 06:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segway monorail 

message: I've been working on fixing article links to the Track (disambiguation) page, and 'track' has come up in this article, does anyone have an opinion on whether Track (monorail) [to redirect here] needs to be added to the disambig page, meaning the physical track i.e. as in railway track? (Also posted on Talk:Magnetic Levitating Train) MickMacNee (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Track' vs. 'Rail' 

message: The SAFEGE suspended monorail test track was used in the 1966 movie of Fahrenheit 451.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.133.134 (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fahrenheit 451 

message: The following press clipping from 1879 describes a military "one-rail" system, so earlier that the name "Monorail" has not yet come into use.  http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1376851?searchTerm=cheap+railway#pstart72945  It is also being advocated as a "Cheap railway".
Keep a look out for a logging monorail of more recent times. The vehicle had a crane which could be used to move the track around as each area was logged out. It was particularly useful in swampy ares where normal vehicles would get bogged, the monorail track sections spreading the weight and elimintating this problem.
There is of course the famous Irish monorail.
Tabletop (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Monorails. 

message: The following press clipping from 1879 describes a military "one-rail" system, so earlier that the name "Monorail" has not yet come into use.  http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1376851?searchTerm=cheap+railway#pstart72945  It is also being advocated as a "Cheap railway".
Keep a look out for a logging monorail of more recent times. The vehicle had a crane which could be used to move the track around as each area was logged out. It was particularly useful in swampy ares where normal vehicles would get bogged, the monorail track sections spreading the weight and elimintating this problem.
There is of course the famous Irish monorail.
Tabletop (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Monorails. 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 14 June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:TamaMonorail0841.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Just noting it here, will try to gather the documentation that I know you people will demand.
The Wuppertal, Germany Schwebeban (literally "hanging transport") is an example of a type I monorail. The cars are suspended from the guideway. (Also noted is the fact that the dedicated article on this monorail refers to it as "floating" which indicates a lack of understanding about monorails and basic German.)
Monorails such as the Walt Disney World and Seattle monorail are examples of type II monorails. These monorails have the cars sitting atop the guideway.
I am not really an expert on the subject. I simply produced a report on monorails for a technical writing class I took many years ago. I pity the person who gets their primary knowledge of monorails from this article. I know it's easy to tear down. But let me suggest the only real value is the graphics. The text is almost superfluous, in my opinion. After saving this comment, I will look at the references. I can't believe they were actually read through. Sorry. Mea (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not make the important distinction between type I and type II monorail 

message: I recently edited the page to change the Tokyo Monorail ridership figure from 300,000 down to 120,692.   The 300,000 is cited on the web a lot but it is the CAPACITY of the system.  If you let google translate this page - http://www.tokyo-monorail.co.jp/company/profile.html - you will see the correct capacity is 311,856 passengers per day (weekday).  I have added a note about this.  It is still he busiest monorail LINE in the world; Walt Disney World Monorail is the busiest SYSTEM with ~150,000 passengers per day on three lines.
The daily ridership figure is derived from http://www.tokyo-monorail.co.jp/company/profile.html.  There is a list of the 2011 "Per day by getting on and off station personnel" by station; if you sum all the figures given then divide by two (i.e. every passenger both enters and exits a station) the daily ridership for that year is 120,692.   
Tjej (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Chongqing Monorail crushes both, line 3 alone serves 500k pax/day. Jpatokal (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridership on Tokyo Monorail NOT 300,000

message: From the section Monorail#Perceptions of monorail as public transport:
:This high-cost perception was challenged most notably in 1963 when the ALWEG consortium proposed to finance the construction of a major system in Los Angeles in return for the right of operation.
I can't be the only person who finds this claim very dubious. Anyone who follows the progress of large-scale transportation projects understands that costs frequently rise far above whatever was projected at the start of the planning process. How does the proposed cost for a system that was never built serve as an adequate challenge to the notion that monorail systems are very expensive to construct?
:This was turned down by the city authorities in favour of no system at all, and the later subway system has faced criticism as it has yet to reach the scale of the proposed monorail.
There's a webpage on past visions of L.A.'s transit future, compiled by a library run by the city's current transit agency, which mentions this proposal. There they suggest that giving up the right of operation over this proposed monorail was no easy choice for the public agency in 1963, something that seems to have been overlooked here. It also mentions a competing monorail proposal, something else that isn't mentioned here.
Also, who exactly is criticizing the Los Angeles subway system on the basis of not being as large as a monorail that was never constructed? And by "the later subway system", are we referring just to the Red and Purple Lines, or are we referring to the entire Metro Rail network (which is now quite a bit larger than the monorail system that was proposed)? If we're only comparing it to the subway lines, why? Is that a fair comparison?
I don't want to just start removing text, because I'm sure that would anger other editors here. But someone needs to start backing up these claims. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claims 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monorail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_n7_v199/ai_20996430/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121206012836/http://www.mouseplanet.com/kkrock/dockrock-1.htm to http://www.mouseplanet.com/kkrock/dockrock-1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Monorail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204205022/http://www.finchleysociety.org.uk/Newsletters/1990s/1997/6-97.pdf to http://www.finchleysociety.org.uk/Newsletters/1990s/1997/6-97.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205072828/http://cq.cri.cn/115/2014/11/21/5s720.htm to http://cq.cri.cn/115/2014/11/21/5s720.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613055508/http://monorails.org/tMspages/News.html to http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/News.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Mention farm monorails. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=農業用單軌車  Jidanni (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farm monorails 

message: For several months, User:Ettrig has been expanding lead sections of articles using AI. Some are Ok, some look OK but are wrong and some are just blatantly wrong. As a result of this discussion, we are reverting these edits:
*Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ettrig mass addition of longer leads.
There are 1000s of these to fix. In some cases (such as this article), pieces of the lead were subsequently edited by others. Unsure whether the lead is now fully reliable, I have tagged it for possible rewrite. A. B. (talk • contribs  •  global count) 20:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Will review this article's lead in the next few days when I have the chance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section issues 

message: This article is rather lacking in information on the benefits and disadvantages of monorails compared to other forms of transport. Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What POV is it pushing? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  A pro-monorail one, since it lacks information on why you would decide not to build a monorail instead of other transport systems.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about monorails, not other modes of transport. Thus, it seems perfectly appropriate to describe the aspects of a monorail in an article about a monorail. To suggest that this gives the article a pro-monorail POV is misguided at best; we are writing an encyclopedia article, not an essay on why other transit modes may be better or worse. Epicgenius (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm sorry, you can't write an encyclopedia article on a mode of transport without comparing it to other modes of transport. Especially when the article already talks about monorail advantages in the "Differences" section. Wikipedia articles should not restrict themselves to technical information only.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm sorry, we should not be talking about one mode of transit in an article about another mode of transit. That would be off topic. Furthermore, this article is by no means all-technical. I'm removing the tag again.In any case, I added a few sentences about the possible shortcomings of monorails as compared to other transit systems. Epicgenius (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to removing the POV tag now that you've added some stuff comparing them to other transit systems in a neutral manner, but I still disagree with your attitude that an article on a mode of transport should ignore that mode's place among other modes.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for my tone earlier, as this was completely due to a misunderstanding on my part. I assumed that you wanted to add detailed info about other modes of transit, when it seems like you wanted to add info comparing the monorail to other modes of transit. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: So a monorail doesn't actually use any rail at all in the sense that railroads use it. They use concrete beams and rubber tires. 
The irony is that this makes this a track, which doesnt use rails, although I see people in the comments here getting very offended at the idea that anyone would use the term "track" in refere to a monorail.  Idumea47b (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rails