Gnads wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 10:53am:

So one must also allow that Sydney’s light rail system mostly runs on a concrete girder that is level with the road surface thus making them monorails?
The undeniable fact is that the Sydney Monorail trains had wheels on both sides and ran on two seperate rails, therefore they didn’t comply
with the historical definition of a monorail.

The apparent modern definition is based on advertising and commercial wishful thinking and the sheep go along with it because they don’t think for themselves.

See the worldwide example of getting the start of the current Millennium wrong and, locally, our Federal Government.

The undeniable fact is that the Sydney Monorail trains had wheels on both sides and ran on two seperate rails, therefore they didn’t comply

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 31^st, 2026 at 6:40pm:

Here’s a ‘’monorail’’’ in Mumbai running on its elevated concrete beams.

The Mumbai Monorail is a straddle-beam system, meaning its rubber-tyred coaches sit directly on top of a single, elevated concrete guidebeam rather than running on traditional tracks. Driven by electric motors with 750V DC power, it uses vertical wheels for support and horizontal wheels for stability.

How many rails do you see there SEOF?

4?

8?

132 - one for each wheel?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Jan 31^st, 2026 at 7:18pm:


That is not a Mumbai Monorail vehicle or girder.

Mumbais Monorail operates the same way as the old Sydney & Brisbane Monorails operated.

On top of a single narrow elevated beam on rubber wheels driven by traction motors on the flat surface of the beam.

You'd argue black was white.

Quote:


Below is a photo of Mumbais Monorail - Take a close look SEOF.

The Sydney Monorail was unequivocally a real monorail because it operated on a single guideway beam, the defining feature of monorail technology.

Built by Swiss company Von Roll using their Type III (Mk III) straddle-beam design, the system featured rubber-tyred trains that straddled and encircled an elevated reinforced concrete beam approximately 70 cm wide by 80 cm high.

The vehicles ran on top-running drive wheels for propulsion, with side guide wheels for lateral stability and under-running stabilizing wheels to prevent derailment.

This setup allowed the entire train to travel along one continuous structural beam without dual rails, powered electrically at 500-525 V AC via contact rails, reaching operational speeds of up to 33 km/h.

Six seven-car trains, each capable of carrying around 170 passengers (48 seated), formed a functional 3.6 km urban loop serving eight stations, carrying millions over its 25-year lifespan from 1988 to 2013.

Industry sources, including transit reports and monorail databases, consistently classify it as a straddle-beam monorail, the most prevalent modern type worldwide (e.g., similar to systems in Tokyo, Las Vegas, and São Paulo).

Critics who claim it “wasn’t a real monorail” often rely on a narrow, purist definition favoring only suspended monorails—where vehicles hang below the rail, as in Germany’s Wuppertal Schwebebahn—dismissing straddle-beam designs as less “mono” due to the beam’s width and multi-surface contact (top, sides, and bottom).

However,

this view is subjective and not supported by mainstream transit engineering or organizations like the Monorail Society, which recognize both straddle and suspended types as legitimate monorails.

The Sydney system met every practical criterion: single-beam guidance, elevated separation from traffic, rubber-tired traction on a dedicated guideway, and urban passenger service.

Its shortcomings—low ridership, poor integration, high costs, and eventual replacement by light rail—stemmed from planning and operational choices, not from failing to qualify as a monorail.

In short, it was a genuine, if flawed, example of straddle-beam monorail technology in action.