AERIAL TECHNOLOGIES, LESSON 1: INTRODUCTION

With most traditional transit technologies, there is little consideration about the
variations within that technology. A bus is a bus; a streetcar is a streetcar; and a
subway is a subway. Sure, theres variation between suppliers and models, but
those differences are negligible compared to the overall technologies themselves.
Thats one of the real competitive advantages traditional transit technologies
possess over cable: Understanding them is simple, and that makes them highly
attractive to time-constrained planners, policy-makers and politicians.
Cable is not so simple. While the basic concept behind all the modes remains the
same (a vehicle propelled by a moving cable), the variations between the modes
tend to cause confusion. Beyond the 4 major families of Cable-Propelled Transit
(Gondola, Aerial Tram, Funicular, Cable Car), there exists a wide range of cable
transit modes, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.
The key to cable is understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each respective
mode and then matching the right mode to the right environment. Its kind of like
pairing wine with food: Youve got to know the subtleties to do it right.
Over the coming months, Ill describe these modes and give appropriate examples
(probably one per week). But to begin with, lets just get an idea of how many
different modes there are:

Monocable Detachable Gondola (MDG)

Bicable Detachable Gondola (BDG)

Funitel

Pulsed Gondola

3S

Funicular

Traditional Funicular

Cincinnati Funicular

Hybrid Funicular

Aerial Tram

Funifor

Cable Car

MiniMetro

Cable Liner

Cable LIner Shuttle

There are other modes, too, but these are the major ones. Like I said; its just not as
easy as a bus is a bus.

AERIALTECHNOLOGIES,LESSON2:MDG
Monocable Detachable Gondolas (MDG) are likely the most common CPT system youll encounter as
their low cost has made them an attractive addition to public transit systems in the developing world.
Systems like the Medellin MetroCable, Telecabine de Constantine and CaracasMetrocable all
use MDG technology.
Characterized by a detachable grip which allows for intermediary stations and corner turning,
MDGs utilize a single cable (hence, monocable) for both propulsion and support. This means that
the cable that pulls the vehicles is also the cable that supports the vehicle.

MDG Stats:
Maximum Speed: 22 km/hr.
Maximum Capacity: 3,000 persons per hour per direction.
Vehicle Capacity: 4 15 persons.
Cost: $5 20 million (US) / kilometre.
MDGs suffer from a relatively low capacity (though still comparable to many urban tram routes) and
given their single cable are prone to stoppages due to winds in excess of 50 km/hr. MDGs are therefore
most useful in calm wind environments with low capacity needs.
As the investment is quite low compared to other technologies, MDGs are excellent starter systems
for cities intrigued by the technology but question its effectiveness. A short, low-capacity feeder line,
for example, would be a fine place for cities to experiment with MDG technology.

AERIALTECHNOLOGIES,LESSON3:BDG
Note: This post was updated on May 30, 2011. These revisions reflect the most current and available
knowledge we have but do not guarantee the validity of the claims made. As always, its best to use
the information contained herein as a guide.
Bicable Detachable Gondolas (BDG) are a less common form of gondola than Monocables (MDG).
Originally, BDGs were a superior technology to the MDG, but advancements in MDG technology have
rendered the BDG obsolete in all but the most specific of situations.
The difference between MDG and BDG is straightforward. Whereas Monocable systems are both
propelled and suspended by the same cable, Bicable systems provide those two separate functions
with two separate cables.
One cable is stationary and doesnt move. Its this cable that gives the gondola support. This cable
acts much like a rail would for a traditional transit vehicle. A wheeled bogey attached to the gripping
mechanism of the gondola runs along this cable much as trains wheels would run along rails.

The second cable is not stationary. It runs in a loop and is powered by bullwheels at the terminals. The
gondola grips attach and detach from this moving cable, thereby providing propulsion.

BDGSTATS:

Maximum Speed: 27 km/hr (revised upwards from 24 km/hr).

Maximum Capacity: ~4,000 pphpd (revised downwards from 6,000 pphpd).
Vehicle Capacity: Up to 17.
Wind Stability: Operational in winds up to 70 km/hr.
Maximum Span Between Towers: Up to 1,000 meters (conditional on capacity).
Cost: $15 25 million (US) / kilometre. (estimate).
While Bicable systems are more expensive than Monocable systems, this added cost is not really
justified. The only two real advantages of a Bicable as compared to an MDG are as follows:

Bicables can travel at greater maximum speeds than the MDG. This speed premium, however,

amounts to only 5.4 km/hr.

Longer spans without need of intermediary stations. Like above, this premium is modest.
Whereas an MDG can span 700 meters without need of an intermediary tower, the BDG can span
1,000 meters.
These modest advantages are offset by the following:

Higher capital cost

Larger station size
Larger tower profile.
Because of their higher capital costs as compared to an MDG, with little real advantage, Bicables are
increasingly becoming an abandoned technology in the cable transit world.

AERIALTECHNOLOGIES,LESSON4:FUNITEL
My absolute, all-time favorite aerial cable technology is a little-known configuration called The Funitel.
The technology was originally created by Lift Engineering, Inc. an American company (that
mercifully no longer exists) with one of the worst safety records in the industry. While the concept
behind the Funitel was ingenious, the engineering wasnt. It wasnt until Poma/Leitner and
Doppelmayr/Garaventa got their hands on the concept and reworked it that the Funitel truly came into
its own.
Its now one of the safest, fastest, most high-capacity aerial cable technologies in existence. And it
looks fantastic!
Like BDG technology, the Funitel uses two cables for support and propulsion. However, unlike the BDG,
both cables in a Funitel are in motion. If youll recall, in a BDG configuration one cable is stationary and
used for support whereas a second, moving cable is used for propulsion. Not so with a Funitel. In a
Funitel configuration, both cables are used for both support and propulsion. For anyone whos been
following The Gondola Project, youll recognize immediately that this is very much like a
traditional MDG system.
Now for the confusing part: Modern Funitels only use one cable. While it appears that a Funitel system
uses two separate cables, in reality one single, double-looped cable creates the effect. In some
literature, the Funitel is actually referred to as the DLM or Double-Looped Monocable.

Asingle,doubleloopedcablecreatestwosetsofparallelropesrunninginoppositedirections.

Like most advanced Cable Propelled Transit systems, the Funitel is a detachable technology. The
system uses a pair of grips that suspend the vehicles between each pair of cables. This unique design
allows for extreme wind stability and safety. Funitels can operate in the most inclement weather
conditions and wind speeds of over 100 km/hr. Like other detachable systems, intermediate stations
and corner-turning are easily implemented. Maximum spans between towers, while not as long as
those associated with the 3S, are still impressive at 1,000 metres.

TheGalzigbahninSt.AntonamAlberginAustria.TheFuniteltechnologyusedallowsforextremelylongspansaswellassafe
operationinhighwindandsnowconditions.ImagebyStevenDale.

Funitel Stats:
Maximum Speed: 27 km/hr.
Maximum Capacity: 4,000 -5,000 persons per hour per direction.
Maximum Vehicle Capacity: 24 30.
Cost: $15 $30 million (US) per kilometre (approximate).
Maximum Span Between Towers: Up to 1 km.
Despite the obvious strengths of the Funitel, one of the most appealing aspects of the technology is
the look of it. Most aerial cable systems dangle from their cable, giving them a sometimes comical,
awkward look. Even I admit that when talking about cable as transit, its hard to take a gondola
seriously. Its my opinion that much of that is due to the appearance of the vehicles.

Most gondolas are asymmetrical, lanky objects that look not unlike ornaments on a Christmas tree.
Theres no front, no hood, no face to the vehicle. They dont look like any kind of vehicle we know or
are familiar with. Its a psychological issue of design that I think implicitly holds the technology back.
As a colleague of mine once said: They just look too goofy.
Thats why I love the Funitel so much.
The Funitel is compact, stocky and purposeful with more than its fair share of moxy. It doesnt just
hang around. It doesnt dangle. The Funitels dual grip provides visual balance and symmetry to the
vehicles and eliminates the junky-looking grip arm that characterizes all other gondola technologies.
The elimination of this arm lowers the profile of the vehicle, making it slicker, sleeker and aggressive. It
looks and feels like a sprinter crouched down ready to dash towards the finish line. The Funitel moves
with an aggressive purpose as if to say dont bother me now, Ive got things to do. It
just looks and feels right.
For cable to truly make in-roads into urban transit, vehicle design and aesthetics is going to becoming
very important, very quickly. The industry has already established that they have a technology that is
competitive (if not superior) to traditional forms of transit and the technology is advancing at a rapid
pace. The engineering is beyond repute. The real question then is, can the industry design
vehicles that have a pleasurable aesthetic that matches their engineering prowess.
The Funitel is one of the first steps towards that answer.

The innovative Funitel offers top ride comfort thanks to pneumatic suspension in a modern,
ergonomic design. This very special ropeway system has a signature design feature: the double
configuration of one continuous rope loop to give four rope lines two parallel haul ropes on the
uphill side and two on the downhill side. This prevents wind-induced side swing of the cabins and
ensures optimal wind stability. As a result, Funitel systems can operate at wind speeds of up to 100
km/h. Very long rope spans are mastered with ease. The specially designed pneumatic suspension
of the cabins ensures exceptional ride comfort at all times, even at a drive speed of 7 m/s.
The combination of cutting-edge technology and individual customer wishes provides the foundation
for the design and construction of every Funitel installation. Depending on the model, the ample
cabins provide space for up to 24 passengers (including up to 18 seats). The panoramic windows in
UV-resistant, tinted polycarbonate provide passengers with a unique all-round view.

The Funitel at a glance

Transport capacity up to 4,000 passengers per hour and direction

Functional, flexible parking facilities to suit requirements

Barrier-free access

Maintenance-friendly

All parts and equipment comply with EU directives (CEN)

he funitel is a fast, detachable-grip gondola that offers a comfortable ride and high wind stability. The
most obvious characteristic of funitel cabins are their short, double arms, which provide stability in
winds up to 100 km/h.
Maybe the most intersting aspect of the funitel is that it runs along a single, dual-loop cable which
gives off the illusion of two cables. This set up makes functionality high but adds to construction and
maintenance costs, as well as increased space requirements.
Funitels are not typically found in cities.

Major Characteristics:
Grip: A funitel cabin has four detachable grips that are attached by two arms. The detachability
means cabins can detach from the cable and slow down for boarding and alighting when in a station.
Cables: A funitel configuration consists of a single dual-loop cable (see diagram below) which provides
both support and propulsion.
Speed: About 7.5 m/s, which is equal to 27 km/h.
Capacity: Generally cabins hold between 20-30 passengers. This amounts to around 3,200-4,000
people per hour per direction.
Towers: Funitel towers are fairly large as they must accomodate the full width of the dual arm cabins.
They can be either cylindrical or lattice structures.

target=_blankOnetypeoffuniteldualloopsetup.

Multiplefunitelconfigurations

The Dual Loop: There are multiple configurations for the funitel but they all achieve the same effect
of doubling up a single cable. Because there is only one cable, each segment of the cable moves at
an identical speed which means both arms of the cabins also move at the same speed. This keeps
cabins aligned and eliminates small speed discrepancies that could otherwise occur.

TheVolkswagenplantinBratislavausesacustomfuniteltotransportnewcars.

The Car Funitel: One unique and intriguing use of a funitel system can be found in Slovakia at
the Bratislava Volkswagen plant. Instead of cabins, the system was outfitted with custom designed
car carriers, which transport new cars between the manufacturing plant and test tracks. The entire
system
is
432m
long
and
can
move
1,100
cars
per
day.

And a few funitel systems that have appeared on the site in the past:

The Galzigbahn Station

The Hakone Ropeway

AERIALTECHNOLOGIES,LESSON5:AERIALTRAMS
Aerial Trams are the granddaddies of cable transit. Theyre big, theyre aggressive and what they do,
they do really well. Problem is, they cant do much. Theyre a completely antiquated technology due to
their lack of detachability.
Like BDG or 3S systems, Aerial Trams use one or two stationary ropes for support while a second or
third moving rope provides the propulsion. But unlike BDG and 3S systems the Aerial Trams grip is
fixed and cannot be decoupled from the propulsion rope during operations. This means
that corners are all but impossible in an Aerial Tram configuration and intermediary stations are
limited to single mid-points along the line. These mid-stations are incredibly rare.
This has created confusion amongst many. Ive seen high-level research reports that have stated
unequivocally that cable transit systems are not capable of turning corners. This is no doubt due to a
confusion between Gondola and Aerial Tram technology. Problem is, the fact that Aerial Trams cannot
turn corners gets extrapolated to mean that all cable transit cannot turn corners, a fact which is
demonstrably false. So lets set the record straight:
In almost all cable transit systems, corners and intermediary stations are simple to implement. The
lone exception is with an Aerial Tram whereby corners and intermediary stations are all but impossible.
Do not make the mistake of assuming that the specific limitations of Aerial Trams equate to a limitation
of cable technology in general.

AsimplifieddiagramcomparinghowdetachableGondolasandAerialTramsoperate:(Top)Smallvehiclesinagondolasystem
constantlycirculate.(Bottom)LargerAerialTramvehiclesshuttlebackandforth.

This lack of detachability points to another failing of Aerial Tram technology. Because vehicles cannot
circulate throughout a system as in a Gondola-type situation, vehicles must shuttle back-and-forth.
This means that only two vehicles are possible and each vehicle is dependent upon the other. Not until
each vehicle is ready to depart can either vehicle move. The only solution to this problem is a Dual
Shuttle configuration that uses two separate rope loops which allow each vehicle to move
independently of the other:

InaDualShuttleconfiguration,AerialTramvehiclescanoperateindependentlyofoneanother.Thisaddsadditionalcosttothe
system,butimprovescapacityandoperationalbenefits.

This solution increases the cost of the system, but provides a marginal increase in capacity and
decreases wait times. It also would allow for intermediary stations as each vehicle operates
independently. Furthermore, a Dual Shuttle allows the system to operate 24 hours per day as one line
can be taken out of service at a time for maintenance while the other continues to operate. Similarly,
in the event of the mechanical failure of one line, the other line can still be operational.
The shuttle-based nature of Aerial Trams means that capacity and wait times are directly proportional
to the length of the system. The longer the system, the longer the wait times between vehicles and
ultimately, the lower the capacity. Because of these limitations, Aerial Trams compensate with
incredibly large cabins of up to 200 people, by far the largest of all aerial cable transit systems.
This compensation only goes so far, however. Aerial Trams can really only move 2,000 pphpdand such
capacity would be possible only in the shortest of systems. Detachable gondola systems, however, can
move up to 6,000.
Ironically, despite having the greatest number of limitations, Aerial Trams are some of the most
expensive cable technologies around. This owes to the massive size of the infrastructure needed to
carry three cables as well as increased station sizes.

Aerial Tram Stats:

Maximum Speed: 45 km/hr.
Maximum System Capacity: 2,000 pphpd.
Vehicle Capacity: Up to 200.
Capital Cost: Approximately $10 50 million (USD) / kilometre.

So when then should you choose an Aerial Tram over other cable transit systems? No where. At least
none that I can think of. There is no benefit to Aerial Trams that other cable systems dont also possess
without the large number of limitations that come with Aerial Trams.
The one potential benefit of Aerial Trams I can see is that of privacy concerns and visual pollution.
Rather than seeing a small gondola fly overhead every 10-30 seconds, one sees a single vehicle every
5-10 minutes. That alone, in my opinion is the only benefit of the technology but is offset by the
overwhelming number of limitations.
The advent of detachable systems rendered Aerial Trams obsolete, but people have held onto them
due to some bizarre connection to the past. For example, the $25 million rebuild of the Roosevelt
Island Tram (which is going on right now) is replacing the old Aerial Tram with a new Dual Shuttle
configuration, a definite improvement over the original.
Replacing the Roosevelt Island Tram with a gondola system, however, would have provided a greater
level of service at a cheaper price. As per my understanding, that alternative was never considered,
likely because of the Trams iconic status. Were the Roosevelt Island link conceived and built today, it
likely wouldve been a 3S system.
The debate thats going on right now about Aerial Trams is this: Is it technologically feasible to
combine the high-capacity vehicles of an Aerial Tram with the detachable capabilities of other
systems? If so, a dramatic increase in system capacity could be realized. Such an increase could allow
aerial cable systems to carry passenger loads approaching that of subways and metros but at a
quarter of the cost.
That would be a game changer the likes of which the cable industry has never seen.

AERIALTECHNOLOGIES,LESSON6:PULSEDGONDOLAS
Pulsed Gondolas are a semi-rare subset of the CPT universe and generally not appropriate for mass
transit installations. Most were built in the mid to late 20th century, and its uncommon to find pulsed
systems built nowadays.
Pulsed Gondolas behave with trains of gondolas moving together in packs (or pulses) in either
an MDG or BDG configuration. This would seem like an intriguing concept at first, except for one
problem: As far as I know, all Pulsed Gondolas are non-detachable. This lack of detachability
translates into slow speeds, long wait times, and low capacity. It also means that corner-turning is
fairly impossible (though not entirely).
You can see in the video below how a pulsed system operates in stations. Notice how not only do the
vehicles slow down, but so does the bullwheel itself. In other words, for people to board and alight a
Pulsed Gondola system, all vehicles must be stopped at the same time for this form of the technology
to function:
Because of their lack of detachability, Pulsed Gondolas are very cost-effective. This, I suspect, is why
some places still opt to build these systems rather than others. If all you require is a point-to-point
system with no intermediary stops and a system capacity below 500 pphpd then maybe a Pulsed
Gondola is for you. Otherwise, look elsewhere.
There is one question worth pondering, however: Lets consider advanced aerial systems
likeFunitels or 3S systems. These systems can move upwards of 6,000 pphpd. Is there a way to fuse
the Pulsed Gondola concept of vehicle trains and remix that with a more contemporary detachable
system?

Currently such a version of the technology doesnt exist, but if it could be developed safely and costeffectively, cable systems could double or triple line capacities. Such an increase would make them
competitive with virtually all standard transit technologies, metros and subways included. As cable
vehicles themselves are quite cheap compared to systems as a whole, the small marginal increase in
cost would more than justify the large marginal increase in capacity.
For another video of a Pulsed Gondola system, check out this past post on the Spokane Falls
Skyride.

AERIALTECHNOLOGIES,LESSON7:3S
One of the rarest and most exciting (at least from an urban perspective) of all aerial cable systems is
the 3S.
The term 3S derives from the phrases dreiSeile or dreiSeil in German which translate directly tothree
ropes or three rope in English. The term is used because 3S systems use two support cables and a
one single propulsion cable (or ropes as it is commonly used). This is a little bit tricky and confusing,
however, because there exist Aerial Trams that also use two support ropes and one single propulsion
rope. So what gives?
Heres what gives: The difference between an Aerial Tram and a 3S system all boils down to
detachability. Whereas Aerial Trams are exclusively shuttle-based in nature (and are therefore not
detachable), 3S systems are continuously circulating detachable systems. This makes a huge
difference.
While both systems have outstanding wind tolerances exceeding 100 km/hr, and both can operate at
speeds up to ~30 km/hr, the 3Ss detachability allows for LT1M wait times and maximum capacities up
to six times higher than an Aerial Tram (up to a current maximum of 6,000 pphpd). Cornering and
intermediary stations are also possible with 3S, something Aerial Trams are not for all intents and
purposes capable of.
Its best to think of a 3S as a hybrid of a Gondola system and an Aerial Tram system. With vehicle sizes
of up to 35-40 people, theyre much larger than standard Gondolas, but more compact than Aerial
Trams. In fact, some references to 3S demonstrate that some view the technology as nothing more
than a high-capacity BDG system (well save this bizarre matter for another days post).
The most captivating of all the 3Ss features is its ability to span huge distances without towers. In the
case of the Whistler-Blackcomb Peak2Peak, that 3S system spans a 3 kilometer long mountain
valley without a single intermediary tower. To do this, however, requires significant sag (or belly) in
the ropes as well as massive tower infrastructure. This is appropriate for complex crossings in
mountain settings, but not in an urban environment where more closely set, lower profile towers
would be necessary.
The 3S can be on the pricey side, costing between $10-30 million (USD) per kilometer depending on
capacity and stations. The Peak2Peak came in at around $12 million per kilometer for a 4.6 km long
system, but that is based on a 2,050 pphpd capacity, 49 second wait times and only two stations. A
CPT version of a 3S system would likely cost 2 3 times that, but that would include all civil work,
intermediary stations and capacities of 4-6,000.
Given that ski resorts rarely have the capacity needs that a 3S can offer, they are a very rare system in
the cable universe. That might change as urban settings look towards CPT and require high speed,
high-capacity systems. Currently, however, only three 3S systems exist in the world and all are located
in resort settings (though the Rittners lower terminal is located in suburban Bozen/Bolzano):

AERIALTECHNOLOGIES,LESSON8:FUNIFOR

1.
2.
3.

4.

The last aerial cable technology worth mentioning is the Funifor. Like the 3S, Funifors are very rare
beasts. Only around a half dozen exist, and are all located in northern Italy (for whatever strange
reason).
In essence, the Funifor is nothing more than a fusion of a Funitel and an Aerial Tram. Its dual grip
mechanism allows for a short grip arm and a more stocky, yet purposeful appearance. It doesnt
appear to dangle like other aerial systems. Like an Aerial Tram, however, it lacks the
Funitels detachability. This means longer than normal wait times and lower capacity. It also means
intermediary stations are very difficult and the technology is best used for point-to-point applications.
Like most Aerial Trams, a Funifor runs on a parallel set of support ropes, though the pair are spaced
wider apart than standard Aerial Trams.
What distinguishes a Funifor from an Aerial Tram is that each of the two cabins operate separately. As
opposed to an Aerial Tram, a Funifors propulsion rope is not returned to the opposite direction for use
by the other vehicle. Instead, each cabin uses its own set of bullwheels, engines and propulsion ropes.
(Thats why when you see pictures of a Funifor, each direction appears to use 4 separate ropes; two for
support, one for propulsion plus the return part of the propulsion loop.) This allows a Funifor three
distinct advantages over an Aerial Tram:
As cabins operate independently of each other, higher capacity can be realized through
reduced wait times.
Intermediary stations become possible in locations other than the exact mid-point.
In the event that one line shuts down due to emergency and or maintenance, the other line
can still operate. Yes, that means that capacity is reduced by half, but at least the system is still in
operation.
If evacuation of a vehicle is necessary, the second vehicle can be used. Funifors can be
equipped with bridging equipment allowing passengers to move from the disabled vehicle over to the
other operational line.
These advantages, however, are offset by a couple of negatives:

1.
2.

Towers are necessarily larger and sturdier in order to carry the extra load.
Doubling of engines and propulsion ropes causes a significant increase in cost.
If one were choosing between an Aerial Tram and a Funifor in an urban environment, it would be best
to opt for the Funifor. The added capacity, reduced travel times, maintenance potential and evac
procedures makes it an obviously superior choice. Yes, its more expensive, but on balance worth it.
Why, after all, do you think New York opted to rebuild the Roosevelt Island Tram as a Funifor? Given
that the terminals were already built, the $25 million USD price tag that came with this rebuild made
the choice easy.

TheRooseveltIslandTramRedesign.ImagefromTheRooseveltIslanderblog.

(In fairness to the manufacturer Sigma (one division of the Poma-Leitner group), this is not strictlyspeaking a Funifor. Funifor the word is a trademarked name of the DoppelmayrGaraventa
Group. Sigmas design, however, clearly captures all that a Funifor is.)