Why does Monorails still exist?

[Psy]

Monorails have proven to be cumbersome while being more limited then convention rails. The monorail lobby pats themselves on the back for making monorail switches cheaper even though they are still far more expensive then conventional switches, it is totally cost prohibitive to have a monorail hump yard where cars roll down a hill via gravity through a ladder of switches to cheaply build and break up trains. Then you have the problem that monorails switches take far more space then conventional switches so a monorail yard take up more space for less switches then a conventional yard.

The largest flaw is that monorail trains are far more underpowered then the average conventional train let alone the fast bullet trains due to more limitations of space and weight on monorails.

[Invincible Summer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't monorail systems primarily used within cities, whereas trains and bullet trains are more used between cities?

Regardless, I can imagine logistical problems due to the fact that monorail systems aren't cross-compatible with other rail systems

[Psy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't monorail systems primarily used within cities, whereas trains and bullet trains are more used between cities?


True



Regardless, I can imagine logistical problems due to the fact that monorail systems aren't cross-compatible with other rail systems

Even railways with proprietary gauges (that also are not cross compatible) are more practice then mono-rails.

Monorails require more elaborate switches as unlike birails (conventional tracks) you can't just guide the flange on the wheels to move it to another track but have to move the entire track.

Here is a animation of a conventional rail switch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20080202-EMDX_AiguillageAnime.gif and here is a diagram of a monorail switch http://www.acroscape.com/switch.gif, conventional switches require far less movement where monorail switch require far more movement and larger switches.

Meaning it is much harder to make a complex monorail network then a conventional rail network thus why all monorails are very simple systems with very few vswitches. Meaning at least with a proprietary bi-rail gauge you can build a much larger network for the cost of a dinky monorail line.

Then you have the problem that monorails have to be built to higher standards for lower speeds and weights then bi rails, a conventional train can move faster and heaver on a shitty warped rusted out track safely then a monorail can move across a shitty warped rusted out monorail. Meaning you require far more maintenance for a monorail to get less use-value back. The conventional wisdom of most railways is just make trains lighter and slower as tracks fall into disrepair while for monorails you have to stop service all together till tracks are repaired.

[Floyce White]

Las Vegas recently expanded the monorail that is behind hotels on the east side of the Strip. A separate monorail exists between Excalibur and Mandalay Bay (on the west side of the Strip, south of Tropicana). Perhaps the two systems will someday join, and be extended to serve the airport. However, the monorails are way, way too slow to be anything but an amusement or a substitute for taxicabs.

If Las Vegas had any urban planning at all, it would have rebuilt Las Vegas Blvd. with a wide median for an elevated railroad to turn to the airport and onward to Paradise and Henderson, and in the other direction, northbound to Downtown and North Las Vegas. The tourist trade would easily pay for the expansion of the system, which would carry employees to the Strip and ease traffic.

Las Vegas need not be sucked into a Disneyland monorail just because the casinos want to forestall the planning of any realistic system.