[ale] OT: Maglev funding?

[Robert Reese~]

> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 23:45, Robert Reese~ <ale at sixit.com> wrote:
>
>>>> In fact, you inadvertently proved the superiority of the
>>>> monorail's switching system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Or...you inadvertently prove the single-point-of-failure in the
>>> monorail's switching system.....
>>>
>>
>> Which, incidentally, is the same as the standard gauge track.  c)
>>
> Not according to the Disney view linked earlier in this thread.   A
> single failing part in the monorail would affect 4 out of 5
> pathways, whereas a single failure in one of the 5+ standard
> switches would only affect one path (albeit loss of that path could
> affect downstream switches/paths).   Still, distribution always
> wins out over eggs in one basket. ;-)

Both of them share the same point of failure: the initial switch.  True, a 
failure beyond that track's first switch impacts only those lines unlike the 
monorail but, unlike the rail, when the monorail is working all five are 
working.  Besides, the monorail's switch is more handily manually controlled so 
even in the event of a failure of the mechanism powering the swing arm the arm 
should be able to still have limited maneuvering.

Besides, what do you think the rate of failure is or would be at that point?  If 
it were sufficiently critical or high, merely adopting the distributed strategy 
of the railroad would surely remedy that situation.

R~