Talk:Mark VI monorail

Trains: Rapid transit / Monorail Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.
	This article is supported by the Monorail task force.

Archives

/Archive 1

Mark VI vs M-VI

Anyone else uncomfortable lumping Mark VI and M-VI trains together as is currently done here? M-VI trains are a derivative of the Mark VI trains, but they are not the same trains. M-VI are driverless, which seems to be a big difference. Roothog 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark VI is the 'original' of that monorail train line (or whatever it is...) for WDW and the M-VI is the Bombardier (sorry if I mispelled it) spin-off for urban use. Yes, there are significant differences between the two. Besides the automation in the M-VI, the design and layout of the M-VI is significantly different from that of the original Mark VI and the number of cars are different as well. The Mark VI has six while the M-VI only has four. Wslupecki 00:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The article reads "The Mark VI monorail (or M-VI) is a monorail train used in the Walt Disney World Monorail System and the Las Vegas Monorail." so it is accurate. The Mark VI is at WDW and the M-VI is at Las Vegas. Both trains have similarities so both fit into this article. HeadMouse 01:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the logical meaning of the sentence that you cited is that both the Mark VI trains and the M-VI trains are used at both WDW and Vegas. This is factually incorrect. In general, anytime you see a phrase "name (or alternate name)", then the alternate name in parentheses is simply a different name for the exact same thing. It is not sufficient indication that these are two different kinds of objects. Roothog 22:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get the point. The problem I see here though is more emphasis on the WDW monorail train (Mark VI) and not enough info on the Las Vegas train (M-VI). Unfortunately, I don't know enough about either so I can't do much of anything about it. But It's just something to consider. Wslupecki 04:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There are not enough differences in the Mark VI and the M-VI to separate them. The basics are the same on both trains and since this article is about the basics of the trains then they both apply. HeadMouse 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm still amazed at the speed of the trains...I mean, If the original Mark VIs were in operating in a large city environment, connecting to several other large nearby subrubs...how fast the train could go (100mph). Yeah, I'm dreaming. Wslupecki 13:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No your correct. they can reach speeds of 100 MPH plus. they are limited though (especially at WDW0 to go no faster then 45MPH, some drivers have hit 50MPH but got in trouble for it. HeadMouse 05:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by "I'm dreaming" is if the Mark VIs were operating in an urban environment, connecting a large city with outer suburbs and other nearby metro areas, how fast the trains could go.......as opposed to Disney. Wslupecki 03:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would like to reopen this discussion. There are significant differences between Mark VI and M-VI trains: number of cars per train, capacity, automation, doors, length, appearance, etc. The previous dismissal of my discussion point came from Headmouse, and I think that the consensus is that Headmouse and his socks are uninformed about monorails. Roothog (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent monorail edits disputed

Knotslanding: Thank you for your recent edits to the page Mark VI monorail. In my opinion, you are altering factually correct information to be factually incorrect. Please stop this practice, or cite verifiable references to demonstrate conclusively that your edits are valid. Notable incorrect statements introduced into these pages include:

You changed "dynamic braking" to "regenerative braking". This is incorrect and makes the Mark VI page internally inconsistent. The trains at WDW use dynamic braking, which burns generated electricity in resistor banks as stated in the article. A regenerative braking system would not have resistor banks but would instead return the generated electricity back into either onboard batteries or into the system-wide power distribution system. If Mark VI monorails have been modified to include regenerative braking, then please provide citations and update the remaining prose of the article to be consistent. If the Las Vegas MVI monorails have differing capabilities than the Mark VI trains at WDW, then please make that distinction in the article.

I will revert these edits if you are unable to provide appropriate citation. Again, thank you for working on these pages, but please take a moment to verify your facts. Other editors: please see similar comment on Walt Disney World Monorail System. Roothog (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The breaking system is regenerative all the mark monorails are regenerative breaking systems you want proof and citation, do your own research. I have done my homework. Knotslanding (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here to help you out. http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/TPDispr.html

and so you knwo what your looking for.. "The Mark VI trains have eight 100hp, 600-volt DC electric motors. These motors also act as brakes by turning the motors into generators and dissipating the power into resistor banks between each car. This is called regenerative braking." So you can add that link and site to the citation I don't know how. Knotslanding (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Never mind I *think* I added the citation since its the SAME page that EVERY citation in the article goes to. Knotslanding (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page cited explains that the vehicles have rheostatic braking ("dissipating the power into resistor banks between each car"), but mistakenly calls it regenerative braking. See dynamic braking for an explanation of the difference. ƕ (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]