Here's a (built circa 1900) Wuppertal Switch:
Throw out some BS, then challenge me to disprove it? It would be impossible to work hard enough to convince you, first you attack me, then you tell me I have to answer to someone who's "Written a book".
All true (in 1915):
Automobiles are difficult to operate because you have to use a crank to start them, constantly get flat tires, must stop and service the engine and dangerous because they only have brakes on rear axle. Plus, thousands of people are killed each year in car crashes so they're obviously deathtraps.
The Switch Myth
Even though great strides in both track and switch technologies were made in the 50's, 60's and beyond, the myth today remains a thorn in the side for monorail proponents. Partly at fault are the rail consultants and suppliers that benefit by the continuation of competing so-called conventional rail. Here at The Monorail Society, we continue to be surprised by the amount of "rail experts" that don't have a clue when it comes to the subject.
"Don't have a clue", or are paid to spread misinformation?
Your wiki article:
Current operating monorails are capable of more efficient switching than in the past. In the case of suspended monorails, switching may be accomplished by moving flanges inside the beamway to shift trains to one line or another.
an some nifty pics;
Again, Monorails.org:
Naysayers, please give it up! Monorail switches work just fine and are doing so as you read this. In fact, when is the last time you heard of a monorail switch accident? In comparison, conventional rail switches are quite capable of causing accidents. Often, switch accidents have result in system shutdowns or delays, even injuries. This isn't uncommon with conventional rail. Monorail switches on the other hand have a clean record. May the Switch Myth Rest in Peace!
And all you'd have to do is read OP to see benefits, but ignore that and throw out something from 1900