Posts Tagged: Stacking

07
Nov

2011

The Kolmården Wildlife Park Cable Car, Sweden

The issue of turns and corners always seems to pique people’s interest, so consider then Sweden’s Kolmården Wildlife Park Cable Car.

Opened just recently, this 2.6 km long system transports 1,360 pphpd and includes a whopping 6 turns (5 if you don’t include the main station)! Take a look:




This is a fascinating system because it creates as many questions as it answers:

Firstly, the system is incredibly slow with a top speed of just over 6 km/hr. That’s fine for a zoo/resort setting (such as this system is), but would be inappropriate for an urban setting. My industry sources have informed me that a higher speed with such cornering would be possible, but would come at additional cost.

What that cost is and what that top speed would be is uncertain.

Stylized route plan for the Kolmården Cable Car. Notice how each and every turn is to the right. Image via Doppelmayr.

Secondly. While the system has 5 (or 6) turns, notice that each and every one of them is a right hand turn. This is due to the uni-directional flow of traffic – in this case counter-clockwise.

The basic rule of turning without intermediary stations is this:

Vehicles can only flow in one direction and all turns must be either to the left (in the event of a clockwise traffic flow) or right (in the even of a counter-clockwise traffic flow).

This makes sense as the sideways grip that characterizes detachable gondolas would prevent bi-directional traffic flows. (As the gondola’s arm must always travel on the convex side of a corner.)

However note the slim profile of the towers (1:00). Would it be possible to “stack” a second line on top of (or beside?) the first with vehicles travelling in the opposite direction, and therefore turning in the opposite direction?

My sources have indicated that, yes, such a configuration would be possible – again, with additional cost. In effect, to make such a configuration work, one would have to double the bull wheel and engine infrastructure and some of the line infrastructure – almost doubling the cost of the initial line.

But as this system uses simple and relatively inexpensive off-the-shelf MDG technology, one could argue that the increase in cost might be marginal compared to the other alternatives – especially given the resulting increase in service.

Engineers? You’ve got an opinion, I’m sure. Go for it.

 



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.

Kolmården Wildlife Park Cable Car
9
Comments
08
Feb

2011

Introducing “Stacking” or The Dual MDG

Yesterday I asked people to consider the implications of two images of relatively obscure gondola transit systems, the Madrid Teleferico and that Ocean Park Gondola.

These systems reinforce the idea that “stacking” or “doubling” of a gondola line is possible. The implications are the very same I outlined in a previous post about the Sugarloaf Double Double Chairlift. There is, however, a big difference here.

When I discussed the Sugarloaf Double Double, I said this:

And yet here in Sugarloaf we have a system from the 1970′s that demonstrates that the concept is not so outlandish. It suggests that there is actually an historical precedent for such an idea.

Now of course a double-seater chairlift is a different beast than a gondola system. Nevertheless, it doesn’t take much of a mental leap to move from two loops of chairlifts on the same tower to two loops of gondolas on the same tower. The concept is equivalent in spirit if not exactly in execution.

The Ocean Park Gondola. Image by flickr user Luke Chan.

The Marid Teleferico. Image by flickr user R.Duran.

In the Ocean Park situation, we can clearly see two different sets of towers carrying two different loops of gondolas. The key, of course, being that they are moving through the same corridor.

This means increased capacity, decreased wait times and the potential for express lines and skip stops.

They don’t, however, share the same tower infrastructure (though they presumably share the same stations).

So while the concept of stacking is displayed in principal, it’s not demonstrated exactly in execution.

When we look at the Madrid Teleferico, meanwhile, we’re left with a somewhat more puzzling situation. In this situation we don’t see two lines of gondolas. We do, however, see a tower that has clearly been constructed to carry a second line. Were there a second line in operation, we would again witness increased capacity, decreased wait times and the potential for express lines and skip stops.

And while the holy grail here would be to see two lines in operation on the Madrid Teleferico, seeing only one is also an opportunity: The Madrid Teleferico demonstrates how a line can be designed with the intention of doubling capacity in the future, without necessarily committing to it in the present.

The funny part about these two systems is that we here at CUP have known about them for a long time. We’d seen pictures (even used one here) of the system, but had always sort of dismissed them as mere Toys for Tourists. We didn’t discover the stacking implications until just a couple of days ago. We’d never seen the right picture of the right piece of infrastructure from the right angle.

It’s quite amazing really. The more you learn about something, the more you learn how little you really know.



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.

Uncategorized
9
Comments