Navigation
User login
O-Train is a steam engine, old technology and old ideas
The O-Train is a steam engine. It uses steel wheels just like trains of a bygone era. It uses electricity that is generated from coal and steam, just like trains from a bygone era.
This is the 22nd century and it is time to build for the future and not the past.
According to http://www.monorails.org/, more than 80% of the monorails in use around the world turn an annual operating profit. Less than 20% of the LRT systems even come close to making a profit.
So, an LRT is a constant drain of funds on the taxpayer.
A Monorail system pays for itself.
A monorail can be installed in many different places with minimal environmental impact. The modular systems can be installed easily along the canal, down the centre of the Queensway, from east to west, through the greenbelt with minimal construction effort.
It is time to plan for the future and stop living in the light of bygone era's.
Steel wheel trains are no longer a viable mass transit vehicle.
One need only look at China, Japan and Malaysia and may other countries to see that monorails systems can be installed rapidly, with minimal environmental impact and can be put anywhere.
wedding
supply in stock and custom lace front wigs, full lace wigs, lace wigs, human hair wigs, remy lace front wigs, cheap wigs, cheap, buy, celebrity
full lace wigs
lace wigs
Monorail
I disagree.
First, it is in fact the 21st Century, and not the 22nd.
Second, Monorails are more expensive than LRT. In North America, many cities have opted to build LRT because it is the cheaper option, and as far as I know, most if not all of these cities profit enough from these systems that many have built extensive, efficient LRT systems that serve their customers well. I use my home city of Calgary as an example; Caglary's LRT is one of the best LRT systems in North America, serving some 250,000 people each workday, and using Wind power to run it, and not coal and steam. In North America, cities that have constructed monorails have had a lot of problems with them, and generally haven't had the ability to expand them to make use of their potential (I use Las Vegas and Seattle as my examples.)
I do agree that Monorail systems have a lot of potential. Obviously, they work well in countries like China, Japan and Malaysia, but all of those places have a much larger population than anywhere in Canada. I've seen Monorail considered for use in Kitchener and Waterloo, Ontario, and while the benefits from such a system were made very clear, it was still more expensive than the comparative LRT options, and jsut as complicated to construct.
I would like to remind the poster (and anyone in this thread) that while Monorail is a system with much potential, and worth considering as a future possibility, that realistically it is not a very useful option in Ottawa's situation. Ottawa needs to focus more on a simple, yet efficient system, and the current plan by the mayor that is supported by FOTO is very appropriate to the situation.
I would also like to remind the poster that comparing LRT to steam trains and "bygone eras" is an absurd comparison. LRT is fully modern, used all over the world (and therefore much tested) technology, and therefore is very "viable". Statements like "LRT is a drain on the taxpayer" and "a Monorail system pays for itself" are true sometimes, but NOT always.
All that said, I think it would be fun to have a serious discussion about monorails, so feel free to use this thread for that. It's always good to talk about all possible ideas, I just think we should do it with a sense of reality the first post lacks.
Matt "Keyo", Transit Planning Hobbyist, with apologies for any problems with this comment, as it was written on very little sleep.
Steam engine
The Watt steam engine (alternatively known as the Boulton and Watt steam engine) was the first type of steam engine to make use of steam at a pressure just above atmospheric to drive the piston helped by a partial vacuum. Improving on the design of the 1712 Newcomen engine, the Watt steam engine, developed sporadically from 1763 to 1775, was the next great step in the development of the steam engine. Offering a dramatic increase in fuel efficiency, the new design replaced Newcomen engines in areas where coal was expensive, and then went on to be used in the place of most natural power sources such as wind and water. James Watt's design became synonymous with steam engines, due in no small part to his business partner, Matthew Boulton budget web hosting. In 1698, the English mechanical designer Thomas Savery invented a steam pumping appliance that drew water directly from a well by a vacuum, then sent it up to a higher level by steam pressure. The appliance was also proposed for draining mines, but limited pumping height made this impracticable. It also consumed an inordinate amount of fuel hosting reseller.
The model Newcomen engine upon which Watt experimented
The solution to draining deep mines was found by Thomas Newcomen who developed an "atmospheric" engine working only on the vacuum principle managed web hosting. It employed a cylinder containing a movable piston connected by a chain to one end of a rocking beam that worked a mechanical lift pump from its opposite end. The top of the steam cylinder was open to the atmosphere. At the end of each stroke steam was introduced into the cylinder below the piston, followed by water. This water condensed the steam and created a partial vacuum below the piston, drawing it down.
Rebuttal
Whoops, slip of the brain there, not going to be 22nd century until 2100.
I loved your argument about monorail being more expensive, that is an argument that lot's of people use. It is possibly thought to scare away people somehow.
Of course, considering that most monorails actually make profit, it probably does not matter what it costs, as something that is making a profit is usually self sufficient, no?
So, don't be concerned about cost folks, look at the wonderful advantages, like the whole thing pays for itself and is not a tax burden.
I know that there are wonderful systems in Calgary and elsewhere, but the taxpayer has to pay money to make them run.
Better to have a system that pays it's way, no?
Clarification
The argument that monorail is more expensive is indeed one people use, because that's usually what they find when they study it. Your argument, that monorails actually make profit, and costs taxpayers less money, is one that I have never seen proof for.
Could you possibly provide some proof that monorail systems aren't expensive? Because wording it like that, without sources that say it actually DOES pay for itself, makes it sound more like an advertisement and less like a usable plan.
And, please note I am not trying to 'scare people off', because I really like monorails and do wish people would build them in North America. and again, I note that neither the Seattle monorail or Las Vegas monorail are particularly successful.