unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
That would be implying that they are currently maintaining the monorail pylons regularly.Maintenance.Why would those footers be in any worse shape than the footers that are already in use?
That would be implying that they are currently maintaining the monorail pylons regularly.Maintenance.Why would those footers be in any worse shape than the footers that are already in use?
That would have been a good thing to clarify much earlier, because you kept talking about monorails instead of light rail or people movers. There is a huge difference in those things and each one can contain it's own argument for feasibility or not. The monorail, for many reasons besides cost, are not ever going to be feasible. Not the least of which is the danger of a monorail train broken down on a rail 30 feet in the air. Something at ground level would not have that risk.Let me also clarify something else. I don't care if its monorail. In fact, I would prefer monorail the least over other forms of automated fixed guideway transit. People movers and PRT are most preferable.
I just want to see less buses. Electric trollies are preferable to buses but not as preferable as automated fixed guideway. Light rail is preferable over trolly.
I do agree with you but stuff on ground level poses it's own safety risks as well.That would have been a good thing to clarify much earlier, because you kept talking about monorails instead of light rail or people movers. There is a huge difference in those things and each one can contain it's own argument for feasibility or not. The monorail, for many reasons besides cost, are not ever going to be feasible. Not the least of which is the danger of a monorail train broken down on a rail 30 feet in the air. Something at ground level would not have that risk.
I keep saying monorail because the company seems to have chosen this option. A key indicator is when they said they will buy new automated trains. So, they are basically locked in to this.That would have been a good thing to clarify much earlier, because you kept talking about monorails instead of light rail or people movers. There is a huge difference in those things and each one can contain it's own argument for feasibility or not. The monorail, for many reasons besides cost, are not ever going to be feasible. Not the least of which is the danger of a monorail train broken down on a rail 30 feet in the air. Something at ground level would not have that risk.
Or underground missile silo cover.Here are two pictures of the alleged monorail foundation backstage at Epcot. If I had to guess I would say it's actually some sort of sewer access.
![]()
Or underground missile silo cover.
Do you know where these are exactly?Here are two pictures of the alleged monorail foundation backstage at Epcot. If I had to guess I would say it's actually some sort of sewer access.
![]()
Do you know where these are exactly?
Oh, okay. Same ones.That is what you are showing labeled Monorail Foundation in this picture. Picture on the left is from 2012 the one on the right from 2013.
![]()
Um...no.In theory, can't an ordinary road bridge structure support any transit system? The whole area has limited access expressway-style roadways. A grade-separated light rail running on the curbs and/or medians of these roads would work just fine.
Looks like a stormwater junction box to me.Here are two pictures of the alleged monorail foundation backstage at Epcot. If I had to guess I would say it's actually some sort of sewer access.
![]()
Um... Why?Um...no.
If the vehicles are no heavier than automobiles, why can't they? If the vehicles run on electricity supplied by the rail, they don't have to carry gasoline, which saves an aweful lot of weight."an ordinary road bridge structure" cannot "support any transit system".
Oh dear. Ok, I'm going to answer this one and then move on with my life...I design and evaluate highway bridges as part of my job, so I can say I'm not just going on a hunch here. They are completely different animals. And seriously, the weight of gasoline in a vehicle is negligible.If the vehicles are no heavier than automobiles, why can't they? If the vehicles run on electricity supplied by the rail, they don't have to carry gasoline, which saves an aweful lot of weight.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.