[HN Gopher] Riding high in Germany on the world's oldest suspend...
___________________________________________________________________
Riding high in Germany on the world's oldest suspended railway
Author : pseudolus
Score : 187 points
Date : 2025-06-08 23:38 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| tormeh wrote:
| This does seem like a superior way to build elevated rail. Less
| noise in particular, as turning doesn't induce slippage like on a
| normal train. Wonder why it's so rare.
| highcountess wrote:
| I think the lock-in is the biggest issue. If you have a hanging
| rail system, you can't just transition off the hanging rail to
| bottom rail when no longer needed like you could with elevated
| bottom rail.
| bombcar wrote:
| This one has the advantage of always being over the river,
| but you could (at much increased weight) put wheels on both
| the top and bottom of the carriage and have a transition
| point.
|
| Expensive and impractical, but could be fun at a theme park.
| cesarb wrote:
| > but you could (at much increased weight) put wheels on
| both the top and bottom of the carriage and have a
| transition point.
|
| A fictional example of this is the monorail on the Half-
| Life games, which transitions between straddle-beam and
| suspended.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| Lots of unnecessary complexity. In this case it makes sense
| because the majority of the line is directly over a river due
| to space constraints, but it's a lot simpler to build a
| concrete viaduct and run normal trains ovwr it. This also
| allows the train to transition to run underground or at-grade.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Not an engineer, but just looking at the photos, this takes an
| enormous amount of steel. While most elevated rail is just a
| concrete bridge with a small amount of structural steel.
|
| Most rails lines continue far enough to leave dense urban areas
| where this makes sense so they have to transition between
| elevated and ground level tracks which this can't do.
| cenamus wrote:
| Turning also doesn't involve slippage in trains. Many
| locomotives already have independently turning wheels, and the
| solid axles of train carts can also turn just fine (as
| explained in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_-UJNETSlg for
| example)
| Bigpet wrote:
| The solid axle turning without slippage from that video works
| for regular inter-city rail. I think it doesn't work for
| rails with the tighter turning radii often required of inner
| city trams and similar rail transport.
| mbajkowski wrote:
| Having lived there for several years I remember these to be
| quite loud. Maybe because the way they hang allows them to sway
| left to right a bit, and causes the metal wheels to make
| contact with the track at various angles. Quiet they were not,
| but fun to ride for sure, and a lot more punctual than busses.
| vegabook wrote:
| Bit of an HDR vibe going on in the photos.
| somat wrote:
| Dangle-trains are one of those things that appeal to me for
| unknown reasons, they just look so cool. But I am unable to
| really quantify the appeal, so here is my attempt.
|
| Advantages:
|
| keeps your electrical plant out of the weather
|
| allows the track to be out of the road while allowing street
| level access to train. This one is a bit iffy as the dangle train
| will usually be put above street traffic.
|
| Disadvantages:
|
| look at how much steel it takes to make that box beam.
|
| Every thing is in tension, leading to complicated structure to
| contain it, joints can be much simpler in compression.
|
| Any how as a dangle-train connoisseur I leave you with two
| additional videos.
|
| A dangle train in japan
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGLrP5eawdY
|
| The Tim Traveler (perhaps the best all around esoteric travel
| channel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kwpj1UOrhs
| thoeri2o34j234 wrote:
| +1 for the Shonan-Monorail.
|
| For those travelling to Tokyo, go to Kamakura, take the famous
| Enoden to Enoshima, then take Shonan-Monorail to Ofuna and
| return to Tokyo.
| tecleandor wrote:
| Oh! Last time I went to Kamakura was in 2006 and I didn't
| visit Enoshima nor Ofuna. I'm going to Tokyo this next month
| again. Are those visits worthy?
| Aeolun wrote:
| Japan has a lot more of these, though normally the tracks are
| below the wagons, which is presumably more efficient.
| decimalenough wrote:
| Japan has exactly two (Chiba & Shonan). But that's still a
| lot by world standards, since there's less than 10 total in
| existence.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I've seen a lot more monorails than just two. Are we
| talking only about hanging monorails (since I was about
| both above and below)?
|
| The one that immediately comes to mind is the Tama
| monorail.
|
| Yurikamome Is technically not a monorail, but it pretty
| close in terms of experience.
|
| Tokyo Disney Resort Line is also an actual monorail.
| decimalenough wrote:
| Japan indeed has many monorails, but only the two I
| mentioned are suspended. The Ueno Zoo monorail was also
| suspended, but it was a bit of a toy and it's
| decommissioned now anyway.
| decimalenough wrote:
| The reason this was used in Wuppertal is that because the town
| is a steep valley with a river in the middle, so the best/only
| place to hang the track was over the river.
|
| Wikipedia has the (not very long) full list of every "dangle-
| train" ever built:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_railway
| aidenn0 wrote:
| And all currently operating trains are in one of China,
| Germany, Japan.
| lmm wrote:
| Monorails are somewhat cheaper than elevated trains (if you
| don't have extreme disabled-evacuation laws) but more expensive
| than a conventional train at ground level, and junctions are a
| nightmare. So they only work where you have a single isolated
| line and would need to elevate most of the track anyway (and
| suspended rather than straddle-beam improves cornering
| performance but at a cost, so is only worth it if your route
| has many sharp corners as well).
|
| For Wuppertal, where the town is pretty linear along a river
| valley, it works. (Even then, a straddle-beam monorail would
| probably be more cost-efficient if you were starting from
| scratch). For most places it doesn't.
| bluGill wrote:
| Monorail needs bigger tunnels than conventional rail so if
| you need underground sections - which most systems need -
| they are more expensive.
|
| even if you are only need a single isolated elevated line
| though monorail still loses just because there is no
| standard: when you need spare parts in 20 years it is
| questinable if you can get them.
| dibujaron wrote:
| Why would they need a bigger tunnel? Monorails are usually
| built to a smaller loading gauge than conventional rail.
| bombcar wrote:
| I've never seen a monorail that wasn't on some massive
| rail, about a foot by a foot in cross section or more.
|
| That raises the monorail floor, which makes the whole
| thing larger.
|
| Modern trams can have nearly-ground-level floors.
| lmm wrote:
| > Monorail needs bigger tunnels than conventional rail so
| if you need underground sections - which most systems need
| - they are more expensive.
|
| It's rare to need much in the way of tunnels on an elevated
| line, by its very nature. And since the beam is narrower
| than the carriages, it doesn't actually increase the tunnel
| diameter (for a round cross section) that much.
|
| > even if you are only need a single isolated elevated line
| though monorail still loses just because there is no
| standard: when you need spare parts in 20 years it is
| questinable if you can get them.
|
| These days there are systems that have been built for
| decades by big name manufacturers, often the same
| manufacturers that make trains. Hitachi or Alstom-nee-
| Bombardier aren't going to disappear and leave their
| clients high and dry, if only because it would be bad for
| their broader rail businesses to do so.
|
| I'm no fan of monorails - quite the opposite - but there
| are cases where they work.
| bluGill wrote:
| Those are still single vendor systems so if your vendor
| disappears - as has happened - you are stuck. You also
| don't get competition for spare parts so who knows if the
| price will be reasonable in the future.
| itsmartapuntocm wrote:
| Bangkok changed the plans of its two most recent transit
| lines (Yellow and Pink) from standard rail to monorail for
| the cost savings - since they're completely elevated. I guess
| they solved the evacuation issue by making the space between
| the two rails a solid platform.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| If you like The Tim Traveler you'll probably also like "What On
| Earth is This?", very much the same vein, no overlap in what
| they've covered. His latest video is on a 1960's underwater
| cable car in France.
|
| https://youtube.com/@whatonearthisthisthing?si=OCSx2leuGaDSG...
| Stratoscope wrote:
| Here is a wonderful video, riding the Wuppertal Schwebebahn in
| 1902 and 2015 side by side:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TqqdOcX4dc
|
| As noted in the description, the 1902 video plays in real time,
| and the 2015 video has some cuts and framerate adjustments to
| keep them in sync.
| Aeolun wrote:
| This is fantastic! Though my main takeaway is that we've
| seemingly forgotten how to make our cities aesthetically
| pleasing.
| appointment wrote:
| Here's the original 1902 footage as digitized by MoMA, without
| AI bullshit smeared over it:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ud1aZFE0fU
| Jean-Philipe wrote:
| Thank you! I keep stumbling upon interesting historical
| footage on Youtube, only to find that it's been ruined by
| janky AI. I do think there's a place for AI and video
| restauration, but colors and 4k, with soundscape, really?
| frereubu wrote:
| Thanks for this. There's _so_ much more detail here.
| irjustin wrote:
| Oh man I love the aesthetics of the 1902 trains, gorgeous.
| amai wrote:
| Cities were so beautiful before we destroyed them with all the
| streets for cars. Also modern buildings look really ugly. We
| need more ornaments in architecture.
| MagnumOpus wrote:
| Here it is more a case of "cities were so beautiful before we
| destroyed them with all the firebombing by the Royal Air
| Force"...
|
| Half of Wuppertal's buildings were destroyed by the end of
| WW2. Some cities had the leeway to rebuild historical
| ornamented buildings, many others built as cheaply and
| quickly as possible because it was more important to create
| more shelter rather than prettier housing.
|
| Edit: Though I very much agree on the ugliness of the
| excessive street furniture and car parking space!
| amai wrote:
| Don't forget the reason for all that firebombing: Germans
| voted for a guy who promised to make Germany great again.
| Worked out great in the end. It was the greatest end of a
| war ever. What a great guy he was.
| maweki wrote:
| I don't think they questioned the reason for bombing
| civilians. They questioned the utility.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Also modern buildings look really ugly. We need more
| ornaments in architecture.
|
| Agree but who the fuck is gonna pay for it? Urban housing is
| already under massive price competition.
| codethief wrote:
| That's a common myth. Ornaments don't have to be expensive.
| Besides, many of the old buildings we consider beautiful
| today were meant for lower-income families back in the day.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| ornaments are expensive now (at least, the ways done
| historically) because modernism put a generation of
| artisans out of work and no one trained to be skilled in
| a dying industry. now it's incredibly specialized.
| mantas wrote:
| Horse poop wasn't exactly great too.
| defrost wrote:
| Not to step in with your good shoes, and the tonnages to
| remove in large urban areas like London and New York were
| substantial, sure.
|
| Thing is, horse poop and straw is _great_ for gardens, weed
| suppression, growing food and flowers.
|
| Can't really say the same for tyre particles, fuel
| emissions, and while the bulk long term CO2 buildup beyond
| the established balance _might_ make things "greener" it
| doesn't seem to advance nutritional returns of vegetation
| enough to offset the climate altering downsides.
| CamouflagedKiwi wrote:
| Disease was a really big problem. The history suggests
| there was far too much of it for gardens to make much of
| an impact in it. There was also a lot of horse urine to
| deal with too.
|
| There are a bunch of problems with cars, but I'd much
| rather live in one of those cities as they are today than
| with no cars but mountains of horse manure everywhere.
| defrost wrote:
| Modern New York frequently has mountains of unremoved
| waste whenever there's a sanitation dispute .. it's a
| problem that hasn't been solved.
|
| New York and London of yore had logistical challenges
| that could have been improved, London famously rebuilt
| its sewers to address the the miasma, and there are many
| uses for urine, horse or human, if gathered.
|
| It's more an infrastructure issue, dealing with waste,
| than an intrinsic failing of one mode of transport over
| another.
| CamouflagedKiwi wrote:
| It is exactly an intrinsic failing of one mode of
| transport over another, that it produces unsanitary
| biological waste which at scale makes life pretty
| unpleasant in big cities. "It's an infrastructure issue"
| doesn't help if the infrastructure to solve the problem
| didn't exist and wasn't getting built (London's sewer
| upgrade was built some time before the horse situation
| was considered critical and was primarily to address
| problems with human effluent).
| bluGill wrote:
| Horse poop is not great for gardens. Horses - unlike cows
| - don't have a digestive system able handle seeds so
| those pass through and end up in your garden. using
| horsepoop in the garden means the weeds grow very well.
| pfdietz wrote:
| I made this mistake once. It took forever to get the
| thistle under control.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Horse manure emits methane, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide.
| Dried up it also becomes brittle and susceptible to
| turning into PM emissions if disturbed.
|
| It was way more of a problem than just aesthetics and
| cars, even in their early days, appeared cleaner overall.
|
| The one thing we never got back are noise levels - modern
| cities are loud.
| frereubu wrote:
| Indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_horse_manure_cr
| isis_of_1...
| jlarocco wrote:
| Horse poop would be an improvement over some of the stuff
| on the streets nowadays.
| frereubu wrote:
| Agree about the destruction for cars. "Modern buildings look
| really ugly" is far too broad a statement though. Apart from
| it being entirely subjective - there are _lots_ of modern
| buildings that I love - your statement just sounds like
| "ugly buildings are ugly" and needs unpacking because I
| presume you don't mean "every single building built after
| 19XX is ugly".
| codethief wrote:
| > Apart from it being entirely subjective
|
| Maybe not entirely. Eye-tracking studies suggest that
| ornaments are what attracts people's attention.
| wffurr wrote:
| RIP all those street trees too.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > Cities were so beautiful before we destroyed them with all
| the streets for cars.
|
| Thank goodness we did! I love my car. I love driving it every
| day. It makes me happy.
| locallost wrote:
| You can make them "beautiful" (as in the eye of the
| beholder), but it will cost you.
|
| A lot of old buildings are beautiful because the people
| making them beautiful were piss poor and paid accordingly.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Ya, they were great before all those annoying people moved in
| and made everything so crowded. Everything looks better when
| there are open fields every other block.
| Sharlin wrote:
| It's not really about people. What made places crowded was
| cars, which take a vast amount of extra space per person
| transported, and continue to take that space even when empty.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Really brings it home how much common space we gave away to
| cars.
| spankibalt wrote:
| Riding high, high up in ze sky.
|
| Ja, ja, all fun and games... until your danglies drop. :( [1]
|
| 1.
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Wuppertal_Schwebebahn_acc...]
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| Five human dead in 125 years is a record to envy for most
| transit systems. (Light rail likes to run into pedestrians,
| almost as much as buses.) And it was a maintenance failure, not
| an operator or structural one.
|
| Not to count the baby elephant that fell out of one car back in
| 1950.
|
| Wuppertal is a wonderful ride for many thousands daily,
| millions for decades, and is a wonderful model of visual, sane,
| safe engineered public transport.
| spankibalt wrote:
| > Not to count the baby elephant that fell out of one car
| back in 1950.
|
| Heavens to Betsy! And the elephant lived... till 1989! :)
|
| > Wuppertal is a wonderful ride for many thousands daily,
| millions for decades, and is a wonderful model of visual,
| sane, safe engineered public transport.
|
| Is ja jut, ich kauf' den Tagespass.
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuffi !
|
| Furthermore:
| https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milchversorgung_Rheinland
|
| cf.:
| https://duckduckgo.com/q=tuffi+milch&ia=images&iax=images
|
| Muuuh...ah...Trooot!
| pimlottc wrote:
| More like "heavens to Wupper"
| Aeolun wrote:
| It was not the railway's fault. As always in these cases, it
| was the squishy humans making the mistakes.
|
| Seriously, who works on a railway until 6 in the morning?
| That's like deploying on a Friday afternoon at 16:50...
| defrost wrote:
| > Seriously, who works on a railway until 6 in the morning?
|
| A great many rail crews the world over .. night time being
| the best time for rolling maintainance and bed upgrades on
| largely daytime passenger lines.
|
| The question that was asked during the investigation was more
| along the lines of "who does major work every night on rail
| lines and _doesn 't_ integrate end of shift safety checks
| (looking for still in place gear, unfinished work, etc)" ?
| Aeolun wrote:
| From what I saw they had those, but were in too much of a
| hurry to do it properly because they waited until 10m
| before line start to do them?
| defrost wrote:
| I read it that way also, a failure to proritise what
| should be mandated safety checks prior to delaring the
| line open for use, caused by a cascading chain of jamming
| too much work into too short a shift.
|
| My father had many stints on many mine sites as a leading
| foreman in charge of shift workers and yard crews .. it's
| been Occ Health and Safety protocol since the 1970s (in
| Australia at least) to post game events that result in
| death, injury, or even a near miss in order to adapt
| procedures to minimise similar things happening again.
|
| As I read it, at the time of this accident they hadn't
| gotten to the stage of mandated safety checks and trial
| runs prior to live runs.
|
| Incidents like these are why many workplaces have check
| lists and strict protocols.
|
| The working at night part is largely irrelevant to the
| actual accident, in this part of the world we run the
| longest heaviest trains in the world 24/7/365 _largely_
| fatal accident free and have dedicated safety officers
| looking out around the clock.
| bluGill wrote:
| My company tracks near misses with that same progams.
| That is any situation where someone could have got hurt
| but by luck either nobody was there when the accident
| hapyened or someone noticed something that is wasn't
| procedure to look for.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Pretty much all major railway maintenance (at least for major
| lines which can't reasonably be closed) is done overnight, to
| avoid closing the railway during operating hours.
| sva_ wrote:
| When I first saw this thing while riding my bike by that river,
| it seemed like the most grotesque industrial thing you could ruin
| a nice river with.
|
| But I know, people on here like trains (lol), so I'll probably
| get down voted for stating my opinion.
| Gare wrote:
| You might consider it an eyesore, but the river is hardly
| ruined by it.
| bombcar wrote:
| There are tons of public projects that faced fierce opposition
| because of the ugliness, that would now face fierce defense
| because of the heritage.
|
| And it's a better fate for the river than the concrete tubes
| many get stuck in.
|
| https://www.hiddenhydrology.org/lost-creeks-of-the-bay-area-...
| eternauta3k wrote:
| You can have both. Enjoy the weird-looking train when you're in
| Wuppertal, then be thankful that you have an awesome river back
| home like in Munich.
| pomian wrote:
| Wasn't there a hanging tram under the train going over the Berlin
| wall? (For workers at Checkpoint Charlie i believe.)
| brazzy wrote:
| You may be thinking of the M-Bahn:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Bahn - though fits almost
| none of the details:)
| Findecanor wrote:
| I will never forget when I saw this the first time.
|
| I woke up early in the morning on a sleeper train to Dusseldorf.
| The train had stopped so I looked out the window: at A-frames
| straddling a river. My first thought was: "That's a weird-looking
| roller coaster".
| TimByte wrote:
| Half-asleep, expecting normal train scenery, and then bam:
| suspended train casually gliding over a river
| vintermann wrote:
| I first saw it in a comic book. Roger Leloup, who drew most of
| the fancy planes and cars in Tintin, had his own series called
| Yoko Tsuno, and he used the Wuppertal suspended rail for a
| minor plot point in one album ("Odin's fire"). In order to have
| an excuse to draw it, most likely. His love for drawing cool
| technology shines through.
| TimByte wrote:
| It's wild that something built in 1901 is still not just
| operational but central to a city's transit system
| Xylakant wrote:
| That's much more common than one would think. The London tube
| began operation 160 years ago. The U1 line in Berlin was
| constructed between 1902 and 1926. The central railway lines
| are substantially older. The Paris metro began operation in
| summer 1900.
|
| Bridges in old cities are very often much older than a century.
|
| The ship lift in Niederfinow that connects the Oder-Havel Canal
| to the Oder river went into operation in 1936 - the canal that
| it serves dates back to 1743.
| https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiffshebewerk_Niederfinow
|
| The Hoover hydroelectric dam is now 90 years old.
| codethief wrote:
| > The U1 line in Berlin was constructed between 1902 and
| 1926.
|
| There's also the S1 line, large parts of which date back to
| 1874[0] or even 1838[1], depending on how you count: The
| train back in 1838 established most of the path today's S1
| takes through southwestern Berlin. The S1 runs on a second
| pair of rails, constructed in 1874, that run in parallel to
| the 1838 line and diverge from it near the city border. The
| old 1838 line is set to be rebuilt by 2038.
|
| [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Railway
|
| [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin%E2%80%93Magdeburg
| _rai...
| arethuza wrote:
| A lot of the rail infrastructure in the UK is older than that -
| e.g. I use the Forth Bridge quite a lot:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forth_Bridge
| rsynnott wrote:
| I mean, you could say this of many if not most cities, I would
| think, for at least some part of the transport system. I can
| see elements of this from my office window:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Kingstown_Railway -
| it's almost 200 years old. Still carrying a train every few
| minutes at peak times.
|
| (Obviously a bit of a railway of Theseus at this point, in that
| besides some of the bridges there's ~no part of it which is
| literally from 1832.)
|
| This thing is kind of weird in that it's apparently basically
| been the same route since completion (most old railways
| ultimately become part of larger systems), but there are other
| examples; I'm fairly sure that the Glasgow Subway route is
| ~exactly what it was in 1896 today, say.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Wasn't this substantially reconstructed after WW2? This whole
| area was bombed and then fought through.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wuppertal_in_World_...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhr_pocket
| amelius wrote:
| Casts a shadow on the city. Not the perfect solution, if you ask
| me.
| johnwalkr wrote:
| The small width and therefore small shadow and unobstruction of
| views of this type of train system is one of its main benefits.
| It's less than a monorail and much less than a conventional
| above-grade system.
| amelius wrote:
| Take that header picture and imagine that street without the
| train, rail, support structures, and shadows. Much nicer if
| you ask me.
| LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
| Now imagine that same street filled with streetcars, or
| even more buses, to carry the same amount of passengers in
| the same time...
| wpm wrote:
| So what? And for how long?
| kccqzy wrote:
| What's wrong with shadows? Some people like shadows and others
| like sunlight. As long as there aren't shadows on every street
| you can always choose the streets you want to walk in.
| xg15 wrote:
| > _As workers flooded to the growing cities of Barmen and
| Elberfeld - which merged in 1929 and were renamed Wuppertal in
| 1930 - the authorities realised a public transport system was
| needed. Other cities were going underground, but Wuppertal's
| rocky soil and narrow, steep valley made any sort of U-Bahn
| impossible, forcing the Schwebebahn's inventor, Eugen Langen, to
| look up instead._
|
| Was a bit confused at this paragraph, as to why it would suddenly
| date the inception of the Schwebebahn in the 1930s when the same
| article began with the maiden voyage in 1901.
|
| So to clarify this: The Schwebebahn really is older than the city
| of Wuppertal. The city only existed as a single municipality
| since 1929, so half the time the article talks about "Wuppertal",
| it really means Barmen and Elberfeld.
|
| So if there was no municipality, who did plan, approve and fund
| the project? Both cities, in a joint planning commission.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn#Histor...
| atombender wrote:
| I think the paragraph is quite clear. The cities merged later,
| and the "which merged..." part is only clarifying that the
| Schwebebahn was created while the current town was two separate
| towns.
| xg15 wrote:
| It's technically correct, just confusing. I think what
| tripped me up was that he keeps using the city's name as a
| shorthand even for the time when it didn't exist yet. That
| sort of blurs the two events even though they were 30 years
| apart.
| looofooo0 wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuffi
|
| An elephant once fell out of it and survived.
| Radle wrote:
| I've grown up in Wuppertal if you've got and questions i'd be
| happy to answer.
| pimeys wrote:
| I would love to visit in the Wuppertal's new club: Open Ground.
| Mark Ernestus is a legend, and they have an exceptional sound
| system in there.
| Radle wrote:
| Huh, I didn't even notice a new Club has opened.
|
| There's a free entry event on Thursday I'll go and check out
| Open Ground.
| glkindlmann wrote:
| I learned about the Schwebebahn from this[1] YT video (from The
| Tim Traveller), which goes into the history of why it made sense
| to build a suspended rail at this particular place and time. A
| more recent video [2] gives a much more detailed history.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IFh6wFTJiQ
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI5DehAuT2I
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-09 23:01 UTC)