The Koblenz Rheinseilbahn, Part 3: Stations

Post by Steven Dale

This past summer I brought attention to the Rheinseilbahn in Koblenz, Germany. In a past post I suggested it was likely a strong example of an Urban Gondola given its innovative design. That opinion, however, was based upon second and third hand knowledge, not first-hand experience. Last month, however, I had the opportunity to visit Koblenz and tour the Rheinseilbahn myself.

This is Part 3 of a 5 part photo essay resulting from that journey. Click here to read Part 1Click here to read Part 2. Click here to read Part 4. Click here to read Part 5.

All images by Steven Dale.

The "Body" of the Rheinseilbahn's lower terminal.

One of the most common arguments against Cable Propelled Transit and Urban Gondolas is station size.

There is a general misunderstanding out there that conflates station architecture with station infrastructure. The assumption is that because most existing cable stations are enormous, enormous stations are somehow intrinsic to the technology. That is, if you want to build a cable system, the stations are going to be huge.

It doesn’t matter that this is completely inaccurate, it is the prevailing perception. And as land in cities is expensive and the price of constructing buildings more costly every day, this is understandably a large concern for planners, policy-makers and decision-makers.

Even the most successful CPT systems such as those in Medellin and Caracas suffer from large station size. Yet in those two circumstances, station size was dictated not by technological needs, but instead by social ones.

In the case of Medellin, station size was dictated by security concerns. In Caracas, it was dictated by a program of integrating community centers into stations. In both situations stations are large and imposing, further reinforcing the point that cable stations are big and expensive.

This is why the Rheinseilbahn is so important; it debunks that myth.

In one graceful gesture, the Rheinseilbahn demonstrates categorically that cable stations can be slim in profile and complementary to the urban form. That the station designers accomplished this with a 3S gondola system is all the more impressive.

For those unfamiliar, 3S gondolas are hefty beasts. One only needs look at Whistler’s Peak 2 Peak to understand why the Rheinseilbahn’s station profile is so ground-breaking. Yes, Bolzano’s Funivia del Renon accomplished something similar, but it suffers from low capacities, poor queue design and an oscillating line speed to achieve its slim profile.

Most important are the station footprints. Foundations and supporting pillars are incredibly narrow. On the lower terminal, the width of less than three people. On the upper terminal, the drive engine, back-up diesel engine and the back-up generator are all integrated with the support pillars and one small, narrow room, barely 2 meters wide.

This design inspires all kinds of thoughts about how and where cable stations could be placed. The first that jumps to mind is within a traffic median. The second is within a traffic median but above street level – a design easily accomplished with little more than an extra few extra square meters of concrete.

Narrow support columns on the lower terminal enable small station footprints.

Despite integrating the engine room with the upper terminal's supporting column, the foot print is not much wider than that seen in the lower terminal.

The engine room seen from the front and side.

Bullwheels and equipment are located above street level, accessible by ladder.

Before moving onto the aesthetics of the Rheinseilbahn’s stations, a final practical concern needs be mentioned:

Typically, gondola and cable systems have a separate facility for storage and maintenance of vehicles. Sometimes these are integrated into stations but at a significant space premium. The Rheinseilbahn does away with that. All 18 vehicles can be maintained, cleaned and stowed in the existing station envelope with no need for additional space. Compare that to LRT, Bus and Subway systems where one of the major costs involved are the massive maintenance bays and storage yards.

Furthermore, because of the vehicle’s storage on-line, vehicles can be brought into operation in a matter of a few minutes thereby eliminating the dead-head time characteristic of other standard transit technologies. This completely negates the common occurrence of vehicles being in-operation but out-of-service.

(Note: Dead-head time is the time required to get a transit vehicle from maintenance/storage yard to in-revenue service. As dead-head time generates no revenue only cost, it should be minimized wherever possible.)

Aesthetically-speaking, the stations are – subjectively – quite lovely. Station infrastructure is shielded from the elements by waterproof material used commonly in large tents stretched in undulating waves across a solid-wood skeleton. It has the dual impact of reducing costs and creating an ethereal, lightweight station that is almost organic in shape and posture. One almost imagines the stations having mouths.

The use of material here is inspired. Viewed from the right angle at the right time of day, the wooden skeleton reveals itself in the sunlight. Meanwhile, translucent yet reflective panels at the ends of the station both hint at what’s inside the station while keeping it hidden from view. The stations walk the line between futuristic and old-world with surprising ease. Imagine a spaceship made out of fabric and wood and you’re on the right track.

The upper terminal; both otherworldly and soothing.

Near sunrise, a vehicles pass into and out of the lower terminal.

The "Mouth" of the lower terminal.

Translucent yet reflective panels.

This use of sun and light is not, however, a mere frill. During daytime hours, the fabric allows enough sunshine into the station bays to allow work to continue without need of artificial lighting, thereby reducing energy consumption and costs.

That dual combination of the practical and the beautiful is what most impresses about this system. Form and function have been married almost perfectly here.

With any hope, the Rheinseilbahn will finally put to rest the notion that cable stations are nothing more than ugly, looming beasts on the horizon.


Click here to read Part 1.

Click here to read Part 2.

Click here to read Part 4.

Click here to read Part 5.

Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.

Want more? Purchase Cable Car Confidential: The Essential Guide to Cable Cars, Urban Gondolas & Cable Propelled Transit and start learning about the world's fastest growing transportation technologies.


  1. I feel like the Rheinseilbahn in Koblenz is actually more like a toy for tourists than anything else. I've no problem with that, but having this huge amount of people like Medellin has is not an issue for the Koblenz system. The Metrocable is a line and the Rheinseilbahn is basically "just" a connection. That impacts on station design/footprint and the whole infrastructure. You are very right at that point concerning the design aspects. As you can see in the annunciations of that project an architectural and engineering office was involved and they even involved their designers. So what you see there is a result of not only putting solutions by the cable car industry into place - it is more like the first attempt ever trying to get rid of the alpine background and starting into something urban ( which is good ;) ). @Steven: thank you for the real first real review into that project in www. I was wondering why on flickr and anywhere else there was hardly material about it and especially about the design of cabins. It seems almost everybody is just happy about the fact that there's a CPT system and they don't look much deeper into it. A video of the station would be nice though - seeing it in action. Closing with one of your favourite quotations (as far as I can remember): it's refreshing to see how far "thinking outside the box" can get - even at its first attempt.
  2. LX, Thanks for the kind words, though I think you're mis-remembering something I said in the past. I try not to use the phrase "outside the box" simply because it's so common a phrase in english nowadays. In my mind there's no better example of not thinking outside the box than using the phrase "outside the box" ;).
  3. For me it is exactly what it means. We have a german word for this: it's Querdenker - the dictionary says "lateral thinker" or lateral thinking. And I think for innovations and changes this way of thinking is necessary.
  4. box or not, it's cool to see a transit station that doesn't look like one!

Leave a comment

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.