Posts Tagged: Propelled

05
Feb

2010

The Peak 2 Peak (Part 1)

Image by Steven Dale.

Last month I toured Whistler’s Peak 2 Peak cable gondola system. This is a 3-part series on the system. Part 1 is necessarily technical in nature and will refer back to several pages of The Gondola Project for those unfamiliar with cable technology.

With small, incremental baby-steps, cable transit continues to push its capabilities beyond what people traditionally expect of it.

Whistler, British Columbia’s Peak 2 Peak, however, is not so much incremental as it is an innovative leap forward for the technology. One of my former university professors, after having ridden the system, described it to me as an “incredibly impressive machine.”

(Somehow referring to it simply as “a machine” doesn’t quite do it justice, but that professor was never easily impressed anyways.)

The Peak 2 Peak was initially conceived by the proprietor’s of the Whistler-Blackcomb ski resort as a method of shuttling skiers and hikers between the tops of the resorts two major mountains (Whistler and Blackcomb).

You can’t help but question the logic of this: Skiers (the primary users of this system) use a gondola to get up a mountain so that they can ski down the mountain. As both the Whistler and Blackcomb Mountains each have their own gondola systems, why would a skier need to use the Peak 2 Peak at all?

Nevertheless, the novelty of the system attracts strong ridership and since it’s opening in early 2009, the Peak 2 Peak has become an attraction in it of itself.

At it’s highest point, the cable is 436 m above the valley floor, which (for comparison) is about the height of Chicago’s Sears Tower. And yet there’s virtually no vertical rise. The Peak 2 Peak is an almost completely horizontal system.

The Peak 2 Peak experiences virtually no vertical rise from station to station. Image by Steven Dale.

While the height of the system is impressive, it’s the valley crossing that garners most attention. While most cable systems would require several intermediary towers to accomplish a 3 km long valley crossing, the Peak 2 Peak does so without a single intermediary tower. This is the longest unsupported cable span in the world and the Peak 2 Peak owes its fame to this very feature.

Massive, unsupported spans such as this were impossible before the recent 3S innovation. Much like the technology behind Innsbruck’s Hungerburgbahn, 3S technology is a hybrid fusion of two separate cable technologies. But while the Hungerburgbahn fused funiculars and gondolas, the 3S is a hybrid of aerial trams and gondolas.

Aerial trams have a high speed, excellent wind stability and large vehicles. They are also expensive. The Portland Aerial Tram and the Roosevelt Island Tram are two very good examples of this technology. The trouble with aerial trams is they are not detachable systems and that causes their overall capacity to decrease. Corner-turning is impossible. It’s a high-cost, low-value technology.

Gondolas, meanwhile, have modest speeds, smaller vehicles and modest wind stability, but are detachable. This detachability increases system capacity, lowers wait times and allows for corner-turning.

The 3S, therefore fuses the benefits of both technologies while eliminating the deficiencies of each. The Peak 2 Peak runs on two individual and stationary support cables while it is propelled by a third separate moving cable. It is basically like a Bicable system with a second support cable. This second support cable allows 3S technology to carry vehicles of up to 35 people and operate safely in 100 km/hr winds.

Capacity of the Peak 2 Peak is 2,500 pphpd with 28-person vehicle headways of 49 seconds. Even shorter headways and larger vehicles are possible, driving the capacity of a 3S system above the 4,000 pphpd threshold.

Two stationary "track" cables with the moving propulsion cable in the centre. Image by Steven Dale.

While the Peak 2 Peak does not utilize intermediary stations or corners, those two features are both possible with 3S technology and are sure to be realized in the future. As of yet, however, only a handful of 3S systems are operational across the globe.

Proceed to Part 2 where I discuss station and vehicle design and footprint.

Click here to read Part 3



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.

04
Feb

2010

Roosevelt Island Tram

New York’s famous Roosevelt Island Tram will be closing this spring for a complete overhaul. The system, built in the late 70’s is one of the few public CPT systems in North America and recently became fully-integrated into that city’s transit system. So if any of you are in NY in the next month, take the time to check out what is a truly unique system. It’s well worth it.

If you don’t have the chance, the wonderful video below should give you an idea of what it’s like.



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.

10
Jan

2010

The Peak 2 Peak

Peak 2 Peak

I’m in transit to Vancouver today to tour the Peak 2 Peak gondola in Whistler, British Columbia.

The Peak 2 Peak uses an advanced 3S technology, whereby vehicles are supported by two stationary cable spans while the third cable provides the propulsion. It’s one of the most sophisticated cable technologies there is. It enables vehicles to operate safely in 100 km/hr winds and incredibly long unsupported spans. The Peak 2 Peak is one of only a handful of 3S systems in the world, but is notable because it has the single longest unsupported cable span on earth; over 3,024 metres long!

This system operates at 27 km/hr, provides an offered capacity of 2,050 pphpd, and has wait times of 49 seconds between vehicles. Built at a cost of $52 million, it is 4.4 km long and has a per kilometre cost of less than $12 million. The ratio between sitting passenger spaces (sittees) and standing passenger spaces (standees) is more than 3 to 1, which is high for any transit technology.

I’ll let you know more about it in the coming week.

Creative Commons image by Duncan Rawlinson.



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.

18
Dec

2009

Grip Module, Lesson 1: Introducing Grips

Gondola Grip

If you’ll recall, cable cars, funiculars, aerial trams and urban gondolas are propelled by means of transit vehicles attaching themselves to a moving cable. Hence the term Cable Propelled Transit. But how does that occur?  With Grips, that’s how.

Grips are just what they sound like. They are like a fist grabbing onto a rope and holding on for dear life. But whereas a rope can slide through a fist given a strong enough tug on the rope, a CPT vehicles’ grip on a cable is fixed in place and cannot shift. (There is one exception to that rule, which we will discuss later on in this module.)

Like that only without the slippage or rope burn.

Like this only without the rope burn.

There are two major types of grips and cable technology can be subdivided into two categories based on those types: Detachable and Attached. Those terms describe whether or not a gondola is capable of detaching itself from the cable or not.

That may scare you initially, but don’t worry, just because a gondola is detachable doesn’t mean it’s dangerous as you’ll see in the next lesson.

Proceed to Lesson 2: Detachable Grips (Part 1)

Creative Commons images by Alan Cordova, and toffehoff



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.

12
Dec

2009

Why Cable Propelled Transit Was Chosen In Oakland


Source:  Bay Area Rapid Transit

Source: Bay Area Rapid Transit

As I mentioned yesterday, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) agency announced on Thursday that the Oakland Airport Connector would be a Cable Propelled Transit system. This was a major breakthrough by a cable technology as it competed head-to-head with two other self-propelled transit technologies and won.

One of the reasons cited by BART for awarding the contract to the Parsons/Flatiron group was that their bid came in $60 million dollars less than the initial estimate of $552 million. That’s 10.8% below estimates for anyone whose counting. Considering most transit projects are completed significantly over budget, that’s impressive, assuming of course they can stay on budget.

Cost, however, was likely not the only motivating factor. Increasingly, transit agencies are noticing cable for what it is: A simple, cheap and effective method of transit compared to other more traditional technologies. Consider a recent report by the American Society of Civil Engineers in their publication, Automated People Movers, 2009 (you can find a limited preview of it at Google Books).

In it, the authors investigated people mover systems by method of propulsion. What did they find? Lots:

“It is observed that technologies that use external propulsion, for instance by means of
cables, currently offer the best efficiency indicators when compared to other technological solutions for propulsion and power transmission.” Page 245

“The interest for a technology also marked by the use of an off-vehicle propeller system strengthens the potential of simple but smart technologies, hopefully cheaper than that dominated by the market until nowadays.” Page 248

“Three (of the five most efficient systems studied ) are cable-propelled from Doppelmayr, one not specified and one is the (untested) pneumatic Aeromovel. The systems with lower efficiency scores… are based on self-propelled vehicles.” Page 252

“From the seven least efficient systems, under this analysis, six of them are based on rubber-tired self-propelled vehicles and one is not specified.” Page 254

“Technologies based on alternative propulsion methods, for instance by means of cables or pneumatics, represent a strong potential to become benchmarks.” Page 255

Things are changing. Maybe we should pay attention.



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.

11
Dec

2009

Oakland Airport Connector

Yesterday morning, Bay Area Rapid Transit announced their selection of of the Parsons/Flatiron group to build the Oakland Airport Connector. This is a significant announcement for Cable Propelled Transit (CPT) because  the transit technology selected for the installation will be a cable system designed and built by Doppelmayr Cable Car.

The reason this is so significant for cable transit is simple: Of the four bids, two included cable transit and two included self-propelled vehicles by Bombardier and Mitsubishi. Cable won.

Let me repeat that: Cable won over two other self-propelled technologies. This is important. If cable is to receive attention, it needs victories like this. Self-propelled vehicles have been the norm for the last 100 years and only in the last decade have cities begun to rediscover the advantages of cable-propelled.

What’s more, at 7 km in length, this is a long system that demonstrates cable’s capabilities not just in short-haul situations but long haul, too.

I’ll speak about this a little more tomorrow, but if you’d like, head on over to Streetsblog to learn more about the selection of the Oakland Airport Connector.



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.

09
Dec

2009

Is Cable A Niche Technology?

Some might say so, but I’m not one of them.

A niche implies specificity. People assume Cable Propelled Transit to be a niche technology because, I think, they are most familiar with it in situations where a large change of elevation occurs. That change in elevation, these people would argue, is its niche.

I look at it from another perspective. Sure Cable Propelled Transit can climb mountains, but it can do other things, too. Lot’s of things. In fact, when you compare cable to rail you quickly realize that cable can be installed virtually anywhere rail can for a fraction of the price. It can also be installed in dozens of environments and locations that rail cannot be installed. Rail can really only go where it currently goes, and for a price far higher than cable.

Now . . . whose the niche technology?



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.