Why should something be penalized because it happens to "look cool", BuildingScout? Please cite an example of a monorail system which is being extended with conventional subway. Perhaps a better question for you would be: What alternative rail technology could Chongqing have chosen for their Metro? What other transit technology could handle the steep grades, tight corners, cut through buildings, all while having a minimal visual disruption? The fact is, no other rail technology other than Monorail could have satisfied these needs.
With regard to defending ICTS: for one, it is powered by a linear induction motor (LIM), which means wheel-to-rail traction doesn't play a part in thrust. This is essentially a three-phase induction motor rolled out flat. An aluminium reaction rail/plate is mounted between the running rails of the track. The stator is wound with 3 phases of coils in a pattern: A B C A B C A B C... and when 3-phase electric current is run through them (variable voltage, variable frequency), a current is also induced in the reaction plate. This induced current sets up its own magnetic field which interacts with the field of the stator and pulls the train along. The stator coils on the bogies react directly with the reaction plates between the rails, so regardless of weather conditions or slope, there is always thrust. Same goes for braking - it's not possible for there to be any slip*. It's direct acting and zero maintenance, with no moving parts. It is the perfect motive technology. I have a soft spot for LIM (and LSM) technology as I've long been a fan of it - even built my own functioning LIM in elementary school for a science fair project which won me 2nd place in all of Ontario... but that's another story!
True, Linear Motors are not limited to ICTS exclusivley (several Japanese subway systems have used LIM propulsion, because it lets the bogies be smaller, which means the tunnels can in turn be smaller, which reduces construction costs) - you could even build a LIM-powered tram/LRV if you really wanted to.
ICTS just screams "future" to me, sorry. I'm a child born in the 80's and I love my 70's and 80's mass transit systems of the future. 100 year old tram technology doesn't get me as excited. I love riding the rt. Standing in those futuristic platforms, all steel and tinted glass and concrete and red/blue steel accents... certainly hearalds a much more forward-thinking look than streetcars with trolley poles and subways with public-school toilet tiles (sorry, Virolite fans).
![[Image: icts4.jpg]](http://levyrapidtransit.ca/wp-content/uploads/icts4.jpg)
* - Yes, LIMs function with some "slip", but it's a different kind of slip than what I'm relating to wheel-to-rail interaction. The forward motion of the train isn't exactly the same speed as the wave through the stator, but it's close and is a closed-loop system, thanks to a tachometer on one of the axles.
With regard to defending ICTS: for one, it is powered by a linear induction motor (LIM), which means wheel-to-rail traction doesn't play a part in thrust. This is essentially a three-phase induction motor rolled out flat. An aluminium reaction rail/plate is mounted between the running rails of the track. The stator is wound with 3 phases of coils in a pattern: A B C A B C A B C... and when 3-phase electric current is run through them (variable voltage, variable frequency), a current is also induced in the reaction plate. This induced current sets up its own magnetic field which interacts with the field of the stator and pulls the train along. The stator coils on the bogies react directly with the reaction plates between the rails, so regardless of weather conditions or slope, there is always thrust. Same goes for braking - it's not possible for there to be any slip*. It's direct acting and zero maintenance, with no moving parts. It is the perfect motive technology. I have a soft spot for LIM (and LSM) technology as I've long been a fan of it - even built my own functioning LIM in elementary school for a science fair project which won me 2nd place in all of Ontario... but that's another story!
True, Linear Motors are not limited to ICTS exclusivley (several Japanese subway systems have used LIM propulsion, because it lets the bogies be smaller, which means the tunnels can in turn be smaller, which reduces construction costs) - you could even build a LIM-powered tram/LRV if you really wanted to.
ICTS just screams "future" to me, sorry. I'm a child born in the 80's and I love my 70's and 80's mass transit systems of the future. 100 year old tram technology doesn't get me as excited. I love riding the rt. Standing in those futuristic platforms, all steel and tinted glass and concrete and red/blue steel accents... certainly hearalds a much more forward-thinking look than streetcars with trolley poles and subways with public-school toilet tiles (sorry, Virolite fans).
* - Yes, LIMs function with some "slip", but it's a different kind of slip than what I'm relating to wheel-to-rail interaction. The forward motion of the train isn't exactly the same speed as the wave through the stator, but it's close and is a closed-loop system, thanks to a tachometer on one of the axles.