See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358104573

New cable car for long distance

Preprint · January 2022

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28557.82405

CITATIONS READS

0 618

1 author:

Raffaele Giovanelli
Università di Parma
63 PUBLICATIONS   117 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A search to explain the Moessbauer effect View project

STRETCHED HOLLOW RAIL SUSPENSION BRIDGE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Raffaele Giovanelli on 16 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New cable car for long distance
Prof. Raffaele Giovanelli - Università di Parma – Italy

Abstract
Gerhard Müller's original idea of building a new cable car capable of covering long
distances on steep or flat terrain, has attracted a lot of interest for many years. The
cable car system consists of an upper load-bearing cable that supports a sliding
deck as an aerial road. But in the end it proved to be unachievable. Here we exam-
ine the defects of the Müller system and analyze a possible variant that allows to
create a new aerial efficient transportation system.

Introduction
We remember the precariousness of the normal cable cars.

Fig. 1 Schematic view of normal cableway - hooking to the supporting rope.

In traditional cable cars (fig. 1) the main rope (support rope) performs the double
function of support (as a bridge) and rail. A second rope provides the traction. Some
jaws automatically tighten on the support rope if the traction rope ceases its action.
The trolley wheels only engage the upper half of the support rope. The lower half of
the rope is engaged on the saddles at the top of the pylons, where the rope itself
slides to maintain constant traction in the spans as the load of the passenger car
moves.
Gerhard Müller (1915 Männedorf, Canton of Zurich, Switzerland - 1985 Dietli-kon)
thought of separating the rail function from the support one and conceived a scheme
like the one illustrated in Fig. 2. Both the rail (1) and the support rope (2) must be
able to slide longitudinally. There are many patents covering the details to make this
idea come true. Müller's first patent is US 4069765 dated 01/24/1978, one of the lat-
est from Lamoreaux, Wettstein, Aasheim and Pugin is CA2311762 dated
05/26/2005 [1].
Fig. 2 - Scheme of the system devised by Müller, where the support function is separated from
that of the rail. The support function is exercised by the upper cable (2), connected with vertical tie
rods to the rail (1). The load P in principle tends to "smooth" the path of the rail (1). The rail runs
on their support points A. This is a difficult part of the system.
________________
The Introduction is based on a text written by the Technical Office of the Municipality
of Rome.
Even in recent times, funicular transports applied to mass transport have continued
to be developed: the Aerobus (1) appeared in 1969, a system that the inventors
propagated as a system of the future, which would the complications of the infra-
structure necessary for ground transport have been eliminated, obviously very
cheap in terms of construction and operation: it is still a cableway, but not the usual
cableway with two cabins to carry up and down four cat skiers and the like, but a
suitable system to a real mass transport, so much so that it can be defined as two
way rapid transit system (because two way (2) that is two-way, we will see it imme-
diately, but as for rapid transit ...). The name of the inventor of the Aerobus is
known: we know that the innovative system was conceived and marketed by a Ger-
man company, Gerhard Müller Maschinenbau A.G. of Pforzheim, manufacturer of
lifts and rope traction systems, which still exists today. Here is the inventor's idea,
which starts from the obvious observation that a rope resting on two fixed supports
assumes a particular configuration, called catenary, which has, due to its weight, the
convexity facing downwards and it is precisely this configuration which limits the
possibilities of application to transport: the rolling stock, hanging or leaning on the
supporting cable, initially finds itself having to descend along the first stretch of
overhead line following a support, and then having to go up to the next support; in
addition to this the passage on the supports is always a bit problematic. Our team
then proposes to suspend the supporting rope (rail rope - (1) of Fig. 2) not directly to
the supports, but indirectly by means of a second catenary and a series of hangers,
as is normal use for the contact lines a electric traction catenary, so to speak; in this
way the carrying cable, at least as long as it is unloaded or not engaged by a rolling
stock, can remain exactly horizontal or even parallel to the ground, if this is not level;
of course, when a cabin were on it, due to its weight, the carrying rope would lower
again. And here is the ingenious idea: the supporting rope is given a pre-tensioning
(T Fig. 2), so that in the absence of a load it is even curved upwards, an inverted ca-
tenary, in other words, which will become horizontal as the cabin. An idea to say to
be strange: at least it could work if the load were constant, but for a rolling stock that
can be empty or loaded with passengers, the load-bearing cable would rarely be
horizontal; but this does not seem to scare the inventor who in his description states
that the carrying rope will be horizontal for an average value of the load (and for a
non- average value?).
Fig. 3 The section of line loaded by the rolling stock (cab-car) appears exactly horizontal, while
the parts outside the support pillars clearly show the upward curvature. On the right a section of
the rolling stock: A, suspension catenary; B, carrying ropes (support tracks for vehicle support
wheels); C, rigid suspension hanger (from Modern Tramway, June 1971).
The figure 3 above shows the diagram of the ropes and a sketch of the section of a
rolling stock which, as you can see, is equipped with two groove drive wheels, which
rest on two ropes making up the running route (here is the meaning of the two way),
which also serve as a contact line for the electrical power supply of the rolling stock;
the system is somewhat reminiscent of the troller socket. The inventor argues that
the line could also have curves, which however should be made with rigid elements
and also talks about the possibility of building exchanges. The system was applied
in 1970 to a short demonstration line at Schmedikon (3), near Zurich, which, despite
the builder's optimistic forecasts, was not particularly successful, so much so that in
1975 it was sold to the locality of Mont Sainte Anne (4) in Canada, where it is said
(but it is doubtful) that it served until 1992. Another demonstration installation, cer-
tainly with notable improvements, takes place in 1974 again in Switzerland, in Diet-
likon again in the canton of Zurich; the fate of this is not known, but another tempo-
rary plant was built in 1975 in Mannheim in Germany, and here there is talk of a line
served by eight cars that would have transported about two million people in six
months. At this point the installations in Europe seem to run aground and the system
is transferred to China with various projects: in 2000 for the city of Chongqing with a
2.6 km long line, three stations and support pylons 90 meters high which has no se-
quel; in 2007 for the city of Weihei with a 4.2 km long line; this latter project, after
various vicissitudes, would have been under construction in 2009 and would have
been completed in 2011. In reality, no Aerobus has ever been heard of again, nei-
ther Chinese nor anything else. A 1971 project for the English city of Southend,
about 2 km long and with rolling stock capable of 200 passengers, did not follow, but
in the meantime the Aerobus patents have changed ownership and are now in
American hands, the Aerobus International Ltd. of Houston, Texas. The demonstra-
tive lines of Schmedikon and Dietikon; in the latter the load-bearing system seems
to be more of a rigid element than a rope.
Some construction data of the system in the Schmedikon application.
Line:
• useful length of the line 1060 m;
• a suspension rope and two load-bearing ropes with a diameter of 40 mm;
• height of the support pillars 16 m;
• height above the ground of the supporting ropes 8 m;
• power supply voltage 500 V DC .. f = 16-8 = 8;
distance L between the pylons L = f / 0.11 = 73 m
______________
(1) Let's not confuse this innovative vehicle with the countless airport bus lines that
have had the same name.
(2) In some two wire sources, essentially the same thing.
(3) Sometimes Mont Sainte-Anne or Mount-Sainte-Anne.
(4) Sometimes Schmerikon, other locality. rev. A2 11/09/21
End of the Introduction.

Comments (the construction details can be found by examining the description

and the figures of the patent US5720225 of 1998/02/24 – See Fig. 4, 5, 6, ref. [1])
The structure appears "disjointed". In the presence of cross winds it will be impossi-
ble to avoid strong vibrations. Other data of the vehicle: length 10.5 m; width 2.2 m;
capacity 29 passengers; wheels diameter 400 mm; empty weight 3600 kg; load
2300 kg; Total weight 3600 + 2300 = 5900 kg; maximum speed 60 km / h. perhaps it
would have reached no more than 20 km / h. Construction details are shown below.
It should be noted that the drawings in these patents are very similar to the struc-
tures actually built, while normally in the patents the drawings are only schematic.
Thus we can see the "fragility" of the whole structure.

Fig.4 The particular aerial system for the Aerobus.

The two tracks are the path of the vehicle wheels.

Fig. 5 - Patent US5720225 of 1998/02/24 (Pugin)
The some parts of the system seems that are held together by their weight. In the
presence of strong wind and consequent oscillations, the stability of the system is
precarious. So you can achieve only short spans (70-100 meters) and speeds not
exceeding 20 km / h. The fully loaded car should weigh 5900 kg. The slender pylon
that appears in the background (Fig. 5) is inadequate to support the weight of the
car with its vibrations. With these limitations, after decades of experimentation, the
mass transport trolleybus (Aerobs) project, initiated by Gerhard Müller, was aban-
doned.
In the presence of the load, the rail will tend to bend downwards, coming to assume
a more or less rectilinear configuration. This should allow the cars to move quickly
along the rail. In reality, the attempts to implement Müller's idea with a system built
in Germany by Eberfeld-Barmen did not allow to reach the goal of high speed. Ru-
dolf Baltensberger, in his patent US4208969 of 1980, observed that Müller's idea
has a great difficulty in being realized. In fact, the configuration of the rail, suspend-
ed from a series of catenary ropes, is curved downwards (Fig. 2).
This configuration will tend to flatten with the passage of the vehicle's weight, creat-
ing a sliding at the points of contact with the pylons. The rail in each segment thus
undergoes longitudinal displacements that misalign it with respect to the upper sup-
porting cables. Furthermore, when the car load moves quickly along the rail, the
"smoothing" of the undulations results in the formation of depressions and cusps,
causing vibrations and concentrated efforts.

Fig. 6 - The fully loaded aerobus should weigh 5900 kg. The slender pylon that appears in the
background is certainly inadequate to withstand the weight of the carriage with its vibrations.

The vehicle therefore does not find a straight path but on the contrary hollows and
peaks that do not allow high speeds. Other solutions arose which led to construction
complications without solving the problem.

The Müller's original idea must be modified

In this project, presented here, each section is placed in traction independently with
a hydraulic cylinder (Fig. 8, 9). The solutions to ensure the continuity of the path be-
tween contiguous spans have been designed and are not included in this presenta-
tion. Müller's idea is actually the creation of a series of suspension bridges (Fig. 2)
in which the deck consists of a beam-rail placed in traction (Fig.4). But after decades
of trying, the idea didn't work. From my mathematical model: http://www.lacrimae-
rerum.it/documents/stretched-hollow-rail-suspension-bridge.pdf. It is of main
importance to apply a high strain along the deck (see fig. 7, 8)
Fig. 7 - Diagram of a normal suspension bridge. Deck A-B is a long beam resting at the two ends.
Without the upper rope, the deck would not even bear its weight. With the upper rope in the ab-
sence of loads in the beam-deck stresses and strains are zero.
Along the deck a strong traction force N must be applied, in order to give sufficient
rigidity to the deck which becomes a beam-rail (fig. 7). In the systems built by Müller,
the N traction was low. Hence the need to arrange the pylons less than 100 meters
from each other.

Fig. 8 - The deck beam has been replaced by a light rail beam and therefore we have a low
moment of inertia for bending. The horizontal tensile force N (as T in fig. 2) provides the beam-rail
with the necessary bending stiffness. The system becomes a tensile structure. Force N is provided
by a hydraulic cylinder. One for each span (figs.9, 10).
Fig. 9 - Loads, stresses and deformations in the stretched structure between two support pylons.
In the figure, the thin line (indicative only) represents the deformed structure due to the load P
(840 t). Figure 10 shows the configuration obtained with a numerical calculation program. h repre-
sents the overload due to the load P. The force N is constant, applied to one end of the beam-rail
which can slide on the support of end A and is put in traction by a hydraulic cylinder (Fig. 9, 10).

Fig. 10 Construction diagram of the cableway between two pylons. The end A of the beam-rail is
sliding and is put in traction with tw force N by the hydraulic cylinder C.

Fig. 11 - Static analysis of the "Messina bridge". Thick line represents the rail, its configuration is
deformed by the load P
Result of the simulation, in static conditions, for a cable car bridge that crosses the
Strait of Messina (3300 meters). Note the high tractive force N = 1500 t. The weight
of the beam-rail plus the weight of the pertinent ropes is equal to 3 t / m.
In the calculation program the most important parameter is the traction force N ap-
plied to the rail beam whose end A can slide according to a constraint that allows
horizontal displacements. The connection between the contiguous spans involves
some constructive complications. Connecting the contiguous spans as planned by
Müller (Fig. 2) proved to be impractical.

Fig. 12 - Dynamic analysis

The tractive force (indicated with T) cannot be high since it has to be transmitted be-
tween many spans, the response to the stress is not rapid (and with oscillations). In
the solutions derived from Muller's idea, traction force is low and the pylons must be
placed at small distances between them (no more than 100 meters). The speed of
the cars is actually not high, from my calculations they travel at no more than 20
Km/h.
As an example to connect to Sicily, with a light bridge for passengers and goods
can be built. This is a light bridge not a cable car. In fact, the structure is not consti-
tuted by a catenary as a supporting rope free to oscillate, but by a hyperstatic struc-
ture in which all the elements are in traction (figs. 7, 8). A bridge that could guaran-
tee a quick connection (with transfer) from the Messina railway station to that of
Reggio Calabria. With this particular bridge there are no difficult construction prob-
lems to be overcome with the techniques currently available. This connection would
be useful for tourism and for the rapid transport of small loads. Passengers with lug-
gage can be transported in a few minutes, including the time to get off the train in
Reggio and then return to Messina.

Fig. 13 - Section of a trolley enclosed in the rail beam. Between two pairs of wheels resting on
two embedded ropes, a driving wheel is engaged on a rough “carpet” glued to the upper internal
part of the rail beam. All wheels are driven, ensuring the grip necessary for traction. At the bottom
of two grooves are placed the cables to supply electrical energy to the traction motors. The com-
mands to the motors pass at high frequency along the same path.

The vehicle (the size of a large bus with a trunk) can travel at a top speed of more
than 100 km / hour, offering passengers a great view. From a logistical point of view,
the proposal is equivalent to a continuous airplane connection for passengers and
goods, a connection that does not depend on weather conditions.
To create a "suspended" transport system, therefore independent of a direct support
on the ground, many attempts have been made, based on the property of materials
capable of withstanding traction, such as steel and in the near future similar materi-
als with Kevlar. The whole system is in a traction condition. The following description
does not illustrate the solution adopted at the ends of the rail beam in correspond-
ence with the pylons for connection with the contiguous sections.

Some general data:

Total weight of the support ropes and rail: 3 t / m
Rail tension N = 2500 ÷ 1500 t depending on the load P
Each fully loaded car weighs more than 700 ÷ 900 t.
These parameters are much, much lower than the large bridge which should carry
an unlikely traffic of trains and vehicles. Obviously the costs would be much lower,
quantifiable in just over two billion euros. Apart from the cost of the two pylons,
about 473 meters high, which would be lighter than that of the piers of the planned
road and rail bridge, having to carry a load about a hundred times less. A flow of
about 1800 passengers / hour in both directions would be guaranteed. The designed
cable car has the characteristic of not having to be blocked even with a strong wind.
The resistance to earthquakes is certainly higher than that of a large suspension
bridge with a large mass of its own.

Approximate static calculation

Consider a minimal solution with only one rail, for shuttle connection. At an average
speed of 100 km / h, if at each stop we have 10 minutes to drop passengers off and
on, we have an interval of approximately 41 minutes between one ride and the next.
(the overall length of the journey includes the connecting sections with the railway
stations).
In order to obtain a higher traffic volume, two connections must be made. The span
length of the bridge will still be 3300 meters (L = 3300 m.) With a very low structural
load:
q = 0.5 [t / m]. The configuration is defined by a ratio n = f / L = 0.11, where f is the
height of the upper catenary.
f = L x 0.11 = 363 [m]; to which 60 meters must be added for the passage of ships.
The beam-rail in the center is raised by f0 = 90 m to allow the dynamics of the whole
system (Fig. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9). The pylons will be higher:
363 + 90 + 60 = 473 meters. The pylons are higher than those of the project for the
approved great bridge, but in this project much smaller load will have to be carried
out than the road and railway bridge. Apart from the towers, the cost will be enor-
mously lower, just over a billion euros. The force S, supported by the catenary
ropes, has a horizontal component H which will result:
H = q x L / (8 n) = 0.5x3300 / 0.88 = 1650 / 0.88 = 1875 [t];
and a vertical V = q x L / 2 = 825 [t] (see Fig. 9, 10).
The maximum force S at the two ends of the support ropes is given by:
S = (H2 + V2) 1/2 = (3.515x106 + 0.68x106) 0.5 = 2048 [t] = 2.048.106 kg
Ø = 86 mm weight 40.6 [kg / m]; two ropes 81.2 [kg / m]; section area 1849 [mm2]
cables incorporated in the rail beam. 11,627 kg / m
Load q on cables 100 [kg/mm2], area A [mm2] = S / q = 2.048 · 104 [mm2] cable sec-
tion: 204.8 [cm2]. R = (A / π) 0.5 = 8.076 [cm]
Two cables Ǿ102.4[mm] radius R = 5.71 [cm]
By adopting for the support ropes two steel ropes with a diameter of 51 [mm]. and
an effective area of the section of the order of 4060 [mm2], with the structure's own
weight q and with the internal stresses created by the traction N, applied to the
beam-rail, there will be a maximum load σ for the support ropes not exceeding 50
[kg / mm2].
With a car weight P of about 800 t, the overload h will be of the order of 30 t; S =
139 t; σ = 34.7 [kg / mm2].
For two directions of travel for the trolleybus we will have these parameters:
total weight of the support ropes and rail: 6 t / m
Maximum cable tension: 30000 t
We assume that each fully loaded car weighs around 800 t.
A flow of around 1800 passengers / hour in both directions would be guaranteed.
The designed trolley cableway has the characteristic of not being blocked by strong
wind as happens for normal trolleyways in which the grooved wheels rest on the
support cable. With this solution the wheels are inside the rail (Fig. 13). The re-
sistance to earthquakes is certainly higher than that of a normal suspension bridge.
In fact, the ropes have a very small mass which with oscillations can transmit little
energy to the vehicle. Since the whole structure is in traction, it will have very high
natural frequencies, far from the frequencies that can be created by the earthquake.
The dynamic load conditions were calculated with a specific program. See [2]

Conclusion
The project consists in the construction of a rail-beam (Figs. 10, 13) which supports
a special trolley (fig. 13), bound into the rail that incorporates it. In this way it is al-
lowed to operate in the most diverse load and in adverse environmental conditions.
In this new transport system, suspended with ropes, the rail function is clearly sepa-
rated from that of support. Furthermore, to overcome the problems encountered in
the terminal points of the rail beam, this is divided into sections comprised between
the contiguous pilons to which they are connected with special fittings. Each beam-
rail section will have only one end blocked, while the other end will be in traction with
constant force N thanks to a hydraulic cylinder. Since the structure of the rail incor-
porates the wheels of the trolley (see fig. 13) so as to make it impossible to disen-
gage it, very high speeds will be allowed by the action of electric motors contained in
the trolley itself.

Note
1) Müller's first patent is US 4069765 dated 01/24/1978, one of the latest from
Lamoreaux, Wettstein, Aasheim and Pugin is CA2311762 dated 05/26/2005.
The most interesting patent is US 6065405: “An improved cableway system for provid-
ing a track over which a vehicle traverses. The system includes a catenary cable system and a pair
of track cable systems. The track cable systems are hung from the catenary cable system and sup-
port tracks over which a vehicle traverses. A plurality of hangers is employed to suspend the track
cable systems from the catenary cable system. A plurality of pylons support the catenary and track
cable systems. A pylon includes a base pylon, a lower saddle, and an upper saddle. The lower sad-
dle is pivotally mounted to the base pylon and supports the track cable systems. Preferred embod-
iments of the lower saddle include apparatuses that dampen the application of loads to the pylon by
the vehicle traversing the system. The upper saddle is supported by the base pylon and supports
the catenary cable system while providing for deflection of the catenary cable system in response to
forces applied to the cableway system. A preferred embodiment of the cableway system includes a
force equalizing assembly for joining the catenary cable system to the track cable system at points
between support pylons to equalize the tension in the cables among the various cables.
Description
This application is a divisional of Ser. No. 09/028,447 filed Feb. 24, 1998 now U.S. Pat. No.
6,065,405 which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 08/510,479 filed Aug. 2, 1995, now
U.S. Pat. No. 5,720,225.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION .
1 Field of the Invention. This invention pertains to elevated cableway systems used in mass
transit systems and the like, and, more particularly, to an improved cableway for such systems.
2. Description of the Prior Art. Many types of elevated cableway systems have been used in
or proposed for mass transit systems. One such system is disclosed and claimed in U.S. Pat. No.
4,069,765 issued Jan. 24, 1978 to Gerhard Muller . This system is neither a suspension, or cable
stayed bridge nor an aerial tramway. Consequently, not all standard design criteria are necessarily
applicable to the system in the Muller '765 patent. Thus the Muller '765 patent discloses a non-
standard approach and FIGS. 1-5 of the present application correspond to FIGS. 3-7 of the Muller
'765 patent. FIG-1 illustrates in gross an elevated cableway system 10 in which vehicle 12 travels
along track cable systems 14 suspended from catenary, or support cable 16. As shown in FIGS. 2-3
and 5, track cable systems 14 comprises locked-coil steel cables 14a-d and catenary cable system
16 comprises locked-coil steel cables 16a-b. Returning to FIG-1, a plurality of pylons 18 elevate and
support track cable systems 14 and catenary cable system 16 between the termini 20 of system 10.
Track cable systems 14 and catenary cable system 16 are preferably anchored to ground 19 to sus-
tain horizontal cable forces and transmit them to ground 19.One of Muller's basic approaches is il-
lustrated in FIGS. 1-2. Stress loads associated with the "sag" in track cable systems 14 and catena-
ry cable system 16 caused by the weight of vehicle 12 were a problem for cableway systems at the
time Muller filed the '765 patent application as shown in FIG-1. Muller proposed, as disclosed in the
'765 patent, to address these problems by pre-tensioning, or pre-stressing, track cable systems 14
so that track cable systems 14 leveled under the weight of vehicle 12 as shown in FIG-1.Part of Mul-
ler's proposed design included new cross-ties 15 and hangers, or spacers, 7 for suspending track
cable systems 14 from catenary cable system 16. These cross-ties 15 and hangers 7, which were
new at the time, are illustrated in FIGS. 2-3. Through this suspension system, track cable systems
14 were tensioned as described above and, consequently, "bowed" upward when not weighted by
vehicle 12. This approach has worked well and is incorporated in the present invention as set forth
below. Muller also proposed tying track cable systems 14 and catenary cable system 16 together
between pylons 18 at points 22 as shown in FIG-4. Muller tied the cables with force equalization
plate 24, in cooperation with clamping plate 26 and wedges 28. Force equalization plate 24 also im-
proved the distribution of load stresses in the cableway system and, in combination with tensioning
track cable systems 14, substantially advanced the art. Muller also adopted the pylon structure ear-
lier disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,753,406. As set forth in column 1, line 65 to column 2, line 3 of the
'765 patent, it was thought the pylons in such a system must be "stiff". It was though that "self-
aligning" or "self-adjusting" pylons would introduce undesirable longitudinal shifting between the ca-
tenary and track cables. However, we now know that "self-aligning" or "self-adjusting" pylons pro-
duce substantial design benefits provided measures are taken to minimize or eliminate longitudinal
shifting.Some problems also appeared in implementing Muller's design despite its great advance
over the art. For instance:(1) catenary cable system 16 was strung over rollers on the top of pylons
18 and began to wear from the movement across the rollers as vehicle 12 traversed the cableway;
(2) the design of the equalizer plate 24 could also cause problems by kinking cable elements 16a-b,
and 14a-d, under some circumstances; and(3) cable elements 14a-d were required to have upper
surfaces engageable by the wheels of the vehicle because the equalizer plate did not provide for
such engagement. It further came to be realized that load stresses could be better distributed
through redesign of the force equalizing assembly as well as the hangers and cross-ties, particularly
in light of the new pylon designs. U.S. Pat. No. 4,264,996 by Baltensperger and Pfister. describes a
suspended railway system with towers that support a catenary cable atop the towers and support
track cables with a "stressing beam" that is pivotally connected to the towers. The '996 system is,
however, distinguishably less capable than the present invention. For instance, the '996 patent fails
to grasp the catenary cable at the support on top of the tower. Therefore, as described in the '996
patent, the cable is allowed to slip in the notches of the support. This slippage will inevitably cause
wear on the cables. Additionally, while the stressing beam gives some measure of weight redistribu-
tion at the track cable support, the fact that there is only one beam and the fact that the beam mere-
ly pivots about a single point ensures that the impact with the support of a vehicle passing over the
support will not be substantially lessened. When weight is applied to one end of the beam, the other
end of the beam necessarily must tilt upwardly thereby creating a ramp for a vehicle traversing the
track to climb. With only a single beam, the tilt of the beam cannot be lessened until the vehicle
 passes each point along the beam. If the beam had secondary and tertiary beams connected to it
as the present invention does, the moment about the central pivot point could be lessened in ad-
vance of the vehicle. With secondary and tertiary beams, the point of applied load is the point where
the secondary beam attaches to the main beam, not the point the vehicle is passing. It is therefore a
feature of this invention that it provides an improved pylon design for elevated cableway systems. It
is furthermore a feature of this invention that the improved pylon design reduces wear on the cate-
nary cable system by not allowing the catenary cable system to slide or roll directly on the top of the
pylon.It is furthermore a feature of this invention that the improved pylon includes a new, deflecting
upper saddle to support the catenary cable system while relieving stresses imposed on the catenary
cable system by deflecting under load applied by the vehicle traversing the track cable system. It is
a still further feature of this invention that the improved pylon includes an improved, pivotable lower
saddle to better transmit forces and distribute load stresses through the cableway system as the
vehicle traverses the cableway. It is furthermore a feature of this invention that load stresses are
distributed through improved hanger and spacer designs. It is still furthermore a feature of this in-
vention that it provides an improved cableway system with greater lateral support for the union be-
tween the catenary and track cable systems by providing improved force equalizing assemblies. It is
still furthermore a feature of this invention that it provides an alternate force equalizing assembly
that reduces wear on the catenary cable system and the track cable systems by allowing the cables
to controllably yield relative to one another as force is transferred between them.

2) Patents: Elevated Cableway System CA2311762, (2000/05/03), Lamoreaux,

Ben US, Wettstein, Hans, CH, Aashein, Per, CH, Pogin, Andreo, CH.

3) http://www.lacrimae-rerum.it/documents/stretched-hollow-rail-suspension-
bridge.pdf

View publication stats