![]() This means that they tend to have less day-to-day running costs than their one-railed counterpart. Indeed, it is often the case that metros are more energy efficient than monorails. However, the expenditure for this is usually not as much as monorails, as the construction work is usually less disruptive and resource-consuming. Of course, building metro stations is not cheap either – excavating and boring the tunnels required for the tracks to run through can be extremely expensive. Because of this raised design, it can cost a hefty sum to build the pillars, columns and station infrastructure. Typically, monorails tend to be more expensive than metros, which can largely be attributed to the elevated track type. This involves not just the financial burden of construction, but also for maintenance and running operations. CostĪnother key aspect to any monorail vs metro debate is the respective costs of both transport systems. These additions, such as noise barriers for monorails, and rubber pads for metros, can help to boost sound insulation. Should there be a risk of excessive noise pollution, both monorails and metros can take measures to reduce the amount of noise pollution they generate. That said, if both were operating in the same environment, metros would likely be louder, as monorail trains themselves don’t make as much noise as many other rail systems. After all, harmful noise levels can create real issues for residents close to light rail or metro lines.ĭue to their exposed nature, monorails tend to create more noise impact on their surrounding environment than metros, which, mostly being underground, has noise emission somewhat dampened. NoiseĪs with any public transportation system, noise levels are always considered when it comes to planning monorail or metro systems. Then again, this usually isn’t much of an issue for metro trains either, as they are often well below the surface of the Earth. The raised design of monorails makes them ideal for use in tricky terrain, as well as areas where ordinary tracks would be too cumbersome or intrusive. Often, metros are underground, with the name ‘metro’ referring to the Metropolitan line of London’s Tube network, which was the first subterranean railway in the world. Meanwhile, metros and light railways follow the same rail type as most other rail systems, with two rails running parallel to each other. Monorail, or ‘mono’ rail, has only one track, and this is often elevated above the ground, with the help of columns or concrete pillars. The difference between the metro and monorail’s track types is pretty much revealed with their name. Indeed, monorail vehicles are powered by electric motors in the vehicle itself, whereas metro cars are powered by electricity from an overhead wire or central rail. ![]() Meanwhile, metro trains are usually heavier than their monorail counterparts, with their steel wheels contributing highly to this. There are exceptions to this though London’s Tube trains, for example, had to adopt a circular shape to be able to fit through the city’s centuries-old tunnels. This isn’t always the case – sometimes, the monorail can be multi-car, which is what a typical metro is.īecause of this, monorails vehicles lend themselves more towards rounded, pointier designs, whereas metro trains are usually boxier. Take one look at a typical metro and monorail vehicle, and you’ll quickly be able to see a clear distinction between the two.įor a start, a typical monorail car has only a single car, which extends along the length of a platform. First on our list of differences between monorail and metro systems is vehicle design.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |