20161114-telluride mountain village gondola …...2016/11/14 · 8.1. system condition 27 8.2....

TELLURIDE MOUNTAIN VILLAGE GONDOLA Condition Report

OUTDOOR ENGINEERS, INC. 14062 Denver West Parkway; Suite 110, Bldg. 52, Golden, CO of 29

CONDITION REPORT

Project: TELLURIDE MOUNTAIN VILLAGE GONDOLA Location: Telluride, CO, USA Subject: Phase 1: Existing System Evaluation => Condition Report Date: November 14, 2016 Revision: Rev. 3 Distribution: TMVOA Anton Benitez Executive Director TMVOA Garrett Brafford Controller

List of Contents: Page Executive Summary 3

� Technical 3

� Economical 4

� Comparison with other systems 5

� Next Steps 5

� Introduction 6

1.1. The Project 6

1.2. Our Assignment 6

1.3. Objective: 6

1.4. Basis for our Evaluation: 6

1.5. Purpose of this Report 6

2. General System Condition 7

2.1. History 7

2.2. General Operating Conditions 7

2.3. General System Design 7

2.4. General System Capacity 9

2.5. Operating Hours 10

3. Technical System Condition 10

3.1. Stations 10

3.2. Drive Machinery 14

3.3. Cabin parking 16

3.4. Controls 16

3.5. Towers 16

3.6. Sheave Assemblies 16

3.7. Grips 16

3.8. Hanger Arms 17

3.9. Cabins 17

3.10. Ropes 20

3.11. Foundations 21

4. Summary of Technical System Condition 21



5. Operation and Maintenance Cost Review 22

5.1. Maintenance Staff 23

5.2. Operation Staff 23

5.3. Additional Staff 24

5.4. O&M Cost 24

6. Summary of Operation and Maintenance Cost Review 26

7. Comparison with other Systems 27

8. Evaluation of Doppelmayr Engineering Study 27

8.1. System Condition 27

8.2. Capacity Increase Scenario 1 28



9. Next Steps 29

Attachments:

� Annex A

� Annex B



Executive Summary

Technical: The “Mountain Village Gondola” at Telluride, Colorado is an 8-passenger Detachable Monocable Gondola and serves as transportation connection between the Town of Telluride and the Mountain Village as well as conntection between Mountan Village Core to Town Hall Suberea. Due to its purpose and use, it can be seen more as an Urban Transportation System than a typical Ski Access Lift.

Due to the professional and continuous maintenance as well as the ongoing component replacements and upgrades, the whole system is in very good condition. Considering the major upgrades performed in 2007 and 2008, which eliminated the weaknesses (such as conveyor trains, bullwheels, sheave assemblies, grips, etc.) of the original design, we feel comfortable to state this is the equivalent of an 8 year old installation with 40’000 hours. Even though the system has a total of 100,000 hours, the main and most critical components were replaced in 2008 and/or later which means considering an average of 5,000 operating hours per year it results in 40,000 hours on the critical components. Older and original items are:

� Steel structure � Partially drive train (gearbox, APU, etc.) � Tensioning Systems � Brake units � Controls � Cabins � Etc.

All those items are still in good condition and we don’t see an immediate replacement need if maintenance is performed as up to now. Please see details under item 3: Technical System Condition

Recommendations: � Re-evaluate the bike rack solution. � Add and dedicate a cabin cleaning group to the operating team � All the bullwheels were replaced, but some have still cracking issues. Keep attention on those

in case a problem in the machine frame develops � Install full power backup in order to operate the system in case of power outage => already

under tender process � An upgrade of the controls would add more safety and redundancy.

System Requirements: We identified three items that would benefit the system and its purpose:Higher capacity:

� There are long waiting lines especially on S1 and S2 during peak times (weekends, events, etc.). Such waiting lines can 20 minutes (approx. 75 – 100 people) or even up to 1 hour (approx. 400 – 500 people) during events. More capacity can only be achieved by adding more cabins.

� LWI cabins: “Level Walk In” would benefit 3 purposes: - Help to achieve a higher capacity due to better loading efficiency - Better ADA access => eliminates the need of stopping the system for ADA loadings - More comfortable loading for passengers, but also easier handling with bikes, stroller,

etc. � Upgrade cabins: There are options to upgrade the comfort in the cabins and provide a better

guest experience. Such items can be heated seats, infotainment systems, special seats, WIFI, etc.



Limitations: It is important to know that the original design of towers and tower foundation would not pass current code and industry standards, even without any change in equipment. Those requirements have changed since its original design in such a way that bigger foundations and towers would be required. That means by any change which would add more weight and/or load to the towers as in the original design criterias would be considered as “major modification” which would result in new towers and tower foundations!

This would also be the case if the current “step-up” cabins would be replaced by the same number of LWI cabins. Due to the additional cabin weight and wind surface all the towers and foundations would need to be re-calculated and replaced. The only way to avoid that would be to reduce the number of cabins so the total load does not increase in relation to the existing forces, which would then not be considered as “major modification” and no new calculations would be required. The other option is to add same type of “step-up”cabins for capacity increase purposes but the additional number needs to be or below 9 cabins for S1 & S2 (or optional 10 of the older and narrower “stp-up” style) and 9 cabins for S3 in order to stay withing the original design limits. Even if the system may not pass todays design requirements, that does not mean it is unsafe to operate under its original design parameters, but any major upgrade means automatically a significant impact.

Economical: Our site visits and document review confirmed that there is a good maintenance and operation program in place. On the first impression the costs seem high, but we have to be aware that this system is a public transportation system, and not a typical ski area access lift. It can be seen as Urban Transportation System, but with all the challenges in a mountain environment at 8,750 ft elevation.

We can see that the investment between 2006 – 2008 had a positive influence to the maintenance cost. It went slightly down. Otherwise, there would have been the risk that the cost will explode due to the starting issues of the original equipment.

There is an unusual increase in operation cost from 2014 to 2015 due to raise of labor rates. We can state with our two O&M cost calculation spreadsheets (Annex A and B) that the actual average O&M cost of USD 2’586’478 are justified. Our comparison calculation with the base salary rate results in an annual O&M cost of just less than 2 mill USD, but with the same approx. 75% “overhead” cost as listed in the actual cost spreadsheet we got for review, we come up with an average annual O&M cost of 3.14 mill USD. Since the actual cost is about in the middle and we know that Telluride is an expensive place to live, we consider the actual cost as OK and justified. This approx. 75% “overhead” is mainly the employee compensation package including items like health benefits, CO PARA, workers comp., administration, payroll taxes, ski passes, etc. Both teams, the Maintenance and the Operation are definitely not overstaffed. The Operators are important for guest experience and to keep the system capacity high (loading efficiency) and the maintenance staff ensures a high reliability and safety.



Recommendation: We recommend adding a “Cleaning and Service” team as mentioned in the

Cabin Section. This would be especially important to keep the cabins in shape. Recommendation: We recommend having a good “reporting” system with “work orders”, etc. in

place. This can be done by hand or with Maintenance Management Software. Those records are important in case of accidents and incidents. They don’t

prevent it, but help to defend in front of the court. Comparison with other systems: It is almost impossible to compare this system with any other out there due to its unique location and use. The lifts in the ski areas don’t operate that many hours and the urban transportation systems are too young. The Steamboat Silver Bullet Gondola: This one was installed in 1986 and has now approx. 85’000 hours on it. I understand it is ready to get replaced; it is at its life’s end. There is a 4 passenger gondola in New Zealand which was also built in 1986. The “Skyline Gondola”, Queenstown operates an average of 5’500 hours per year => we assume it has after 29 years between 150 – 160’000 hours on the machine. They even increased capacity 2 years ago by adding more cabins. It is important to know that they operate at reduced speed when capacity is not required, even down to 2.5 m/s All other urban systems like in South America (Medellin, Caracas, La Paz, Rio de Janeiro, etc.) operate many hours but are much younger.

Next Steps:

� We will provide the report for the Chondola by end of November 2016 � I will visit Telluride in September where we can present and/or discuss the report with any

stakeholders � Next step would be to get an Economic Impact Study as base for Phase 2

Best Regards, OUTDOOR ENGINEERS, INC

Oswald Graber President



1. Introduction

1.1. The Project

Condition Evaluation of the “Mountain Village Gondola” at Telluride, Colorado. This 8-passenger Detachable Monocable Gondola serves as transportation connection between the Town of Telluride and the Mountain Village as well as conntection between Mountan Village Core to Town Hall Suberea. Due to its use it is more an Urban Transportation System than a typical Ski Access Lift

1.2. Our Assignment

TMVOA engaged Outdoor Engineers, Inc. (OEINC) to perform a 3rd

party assessment of the status quo condition on the existing system. This evaluation contains following tasks:

� Collect and review existing data � Review Existing System Conditions � Review existing O&M Cost � Evaluate collected Data and situations � Evaluate Doppelmayr Engineering Study � Prepare “Condition Report”

1.3. Objective:

Since TMVOA has the financial obligation over this system for ownership as well as maintenance and operation cost, they are interested in the cost impact in order to run the system through 2027. Therefore the first step (Phase 1) is to get a clear understanding of the existing system conditions and operation.

1.4. Basis for our evaluation:

Various information received: � Parametrix Report dated March 2, 2009 � Doppelmayr Report dated September 2, 2015 � O&M cost spreadsheets � Budget spreadsheets � Ridership information

On site visit in 2015 and February 2016 � May 2015 � February 2016 � July 2016 � September 2016

1.5. Purpose of this Report

This report serves as decision tool for future actions which has following 4 options: Option 1: Do nothing special, continue operation as is and do ongoing maintenance and system

repairs as they come up. Option 2: Do continuous smaller upgrades to raise system reliability without getting into the “Major

Modification” classification which requires meeting current code. Option 3: Make a major upgrade to a more state-of-the-art technology in order to raise comfort,

capacity and reliability. Option 4: Replace the current system with a complete new one.



2. General System Condition

2.1. History

1993: construction completed 1996: Commissioned and opened to public in November 1996 1998 and 1999: station tire shafts started breaking 2000: bullwheels started cracking => repaired 2000 and 2001: all gear box reducers were upgraded with CTEC-Kissling reducers 2002: replaced all drive bullwheels 2002: replaced original haul rope (dia. 42mm) with type JOTA (dia 42mm) on S1, S2 and

S3 2005: replaced all return bullwheels 2005: replaced haul rope type JOTA (dia 42mm) with another JOTA (dia 42mm) on S3 2005: grip items started cracking => intensive maintenance and some parts were replaced 2007 and 2008: major modification by Doppelmayr-CTEC (6 mill USD) @ approx. 53’000 operating

hours. Replaced grips to new Agamatic type AGA and all the parts that get in contact with grip, in the stations as well as on the towers.

2008: replaced haul rope type JOTA (dia 42mm ) with compacted rope (dia. 44mm) on S1 & S2

2010: replaced haul rope type JOTA (dia 42mm ) with compacted rope (dia. 44mm) on S3 2016: replaced all 3 main electric motors and drives 2016: started tender process for full generator backup

2.2. General Operating Conditions

� S1 and S2 are the “flag ships” handling the main passenger traffic. S3 is not so busy but still frequently used

� Have huge waiting lines on S1 and S2 during events and busy weekends. Such waiting lines can 20 minutes (approx. 75 – 100 people) or even up to 1 hour (approx. 400 – 500 people) during events. More capacity can only be achieved by adding more cabins.

� There are no rime ice issues in the Telluride climate conditions except at top Station of S2 � Not much wind � Have vandalism problems like graphity, scratching windows and seats, etc. � There is significant lightning

2.3. General System Design

The system is designed and built as an 8-passenger Detachable Monocable Gondola in 3 independent Sections, whereby Section 1 and 2 can be connected where the cabins run through and Section 2 operates independent where the passengers need to exit and enter the cabins. Each Section has its own Drive and Tension Station: Section 1: Bottom Tension Station at Town of Telluride Top Drive Station (vault drive) at San Sophia Angle Station Section 2: Top Drive Station (vault drive) at San Sophia Angle Station Bottom Tension Station at Mountain Village Plaza Section 3: Bottom Tension Station at Mountain Village Plaza Top Drive Station (overhead drive) at Mountain Village Grocery Store



Section 3 (S3) Horizontal: 2’626.17 ft Vertical: 4.53 ft Inclined length: 2’635.84 ft Inclination: 0.17% Current capacity:

- theoretical: 660 PPHpD - actual: 600 PPHpD - loading efficiency:

460 – 600 PPHpD

Section 2 (S2) Horizontal: 3’774.35 ft Vertical: 995.04 ft Inclined length: 3’919.51 ft Inclination: 26.36% Current capacity:


650 – 830 PPHpD

Section 1 (S1) Horizontal: 5’610.84 ft Vertical: 1’775.02 ft Inclined length: 5’914.59 ft Inclination: 31.64% Current capacity:


650 – 830 PPHpD

Mountain Village Grocery Store: Top Station of S3

Mountain Village Plaza: Bottom Station of S3 Bottom Station of S2

San Sophia Angle Station: Top Station of S2 Top Station of S1

Town of Telluride: Bottom Station of S1



2.4. General System Capacity

The system (all 3 Sections) is designed for an ultimate capacity of 1’200 PPHpD (People Per Hour per Direction) at a maximum speed of 1’000 fpm (feet per minute). The original installed capacity was only for 350 PPH whereby over time cabins were added to the current capacity listed on previous page #8. These are theoretical capacities at full operating speed of 1’000 fpm. Due to loading challenges the average operating speed is 900 fpm which decreases those theoretical capacities by 10%. I addition we have to consider the “loading efficiency” which can be anywhere between 70 – 90% of the theoretical capacity depending on loading setup and procedures. Section 1 and 2 are equipped with 48 cabins

maximum possible with current design is 57 cabins => possible to add 9 more which gives a maximum theoretical capacity of 1070 PPH which will result in an actual capacity considering loading efficiency of 750 – 970 PPH

Section 3 is equipped with 11 cabins maximum possible with current design is 9 cabins => possible to add 9 more which gives a maximum theoretical capacity of 1200 PPH which will result in an actual capacity considering loading efficiency of 840 – 1080 PPH

Our observation and impression of loading/unloading on a busy Saturday at the Plaza Station: There are normally 2 operators per station. We saw on several occasions only one There are 3 lanes:

� Bike lane � Regular lane � Singles lane � Group line at bottom of S2

The system was operating at 900 fpm, because the time for loading the cabins with bikes, stroller, etc. would be too short and the door would already close on people. The Operators performed a great job, but there was nothing they could have done better without more operators and/or more cabins on S1 & S2. S3 worked well, there were low lines S1 & S2. stopped all the time for handicap loadings. Beside the capacity reductions, those stops cause also additional wear and tear => LWI cabins (level loading) would be an advantage to avoid all those stops. Only 2 ADA cabins with the necessary door width are currently on the system. There are two different types of bike racks, one on the door and one on the back of the cabins. The Operator needs to lift the bikes to rack on the door. The racks on the back of the cabin works better, because the ones on the door interfere with the loading people. Recommendation: We recommend to re-evaluate the bike rack solution. There are different systems

on the market which can be looked at. In our mind it is important to have only ONE type of system to avoid confusion by the users. Add operators for customer control and safety. During our visit we never saw an operator within 10ft of the stop button, which is not so critical on a gondola as on a chairlift, but should be mentioned Summary: The platform is understaffed at times!



Please Note: There can be cases where increasing the operating speed results in a lower actual

capacity, due to more stops and delays caused by loading and/or unloading problems. Therefore it is important to consider also the cabin speed in the loading/unloading zone which dictates the available time for loading/unloading.

2.5. Operating Hours

The System makes an average of 5’000 hours per year Our readings were:

� Jan 31, 2016: 97’430 hours � Mid-February, 2016: approx. 98’000 hours � Mid-July, 2016: Approx... 100’000 hours

These numbers of hours as well as the way the system is operated and located, it can be seen as Urban Transportation System, which is typical a public transportation system with the goal to transport high number of people in a short period of time between two or more definded locations. The term “Urban” is usually used for transportation systems within cities or connecting city parts. It is not the typical Ski Access Lift like in other Ski Areas.

3. Technical System Condition

3.1. Stations

All the Steel Structural is the original built in 1993. There is nothing wrong with it except some vibration issues at S2 bottom station. We can summarize the Steel Structure being in good condition by visual inspections. We did not perform any other methods than visual, we don’t see the need for that at this point.

L1 & L2 Top Station L3 Top Station



2006: all Stations got new running rails which were designed to accommodate AGA grips as well

2008: replaced AGA grips and everything that comes in touch with the gips in the station (coupling area, conveyors, etc.). This was a total of 14 semi loads of equipment. All the new station equipment is galvanized!

New running rails AGA grip replaced in 2008

All new galvanized conveyors



2008: upsized conveyor motors from 25HP to 40HP

Gen-sets just for conveyors:

Three Stations are equipped with new black v-belt pulleys in the accelerator and decelerator line for testing purposes => they show no wear after 9’000 operating hours!

New 40 HP conveyor motors

Gen-set for conveyor motors

Conveyor motors

Original style pulley New black pulleys



2008: installed new grip force testing units plus controls with it. The grip force testing is done at the entrance rail

All Station Machinery is State of the art Doppelmayr standard Type UNI-G

2008: New cabin door opening and closing rail

Grip force testing

Typical safety (grip monitoring) of UNI-G station design

New cabin door closing rail



2016: All Stations got repainted this year

The Town of Mountain Village plans to replace low speed conveyor (curve) in near future. Do not have an issue, but should be done before they cause a problem. Noise and Ventilation: All Stations are quite loud, but is not a real problem except at S3 Top Station next to the Grocery store. Noise mitigation should be evaluated. Also ventilation is not a problem except for S1 Bottom Station at Town of Telluride. Ventilation as well as Station access shall be evaluated.

3.2. Drive Machinery

2016: Electric Motors and AC Drives (from DC drives) of S1 & S2 were replaced this spring S1: before 400HP replaced by 500HP S2: before 300HP replaced by 500HP S3: still original equipment with 150HP motor The drive and motor exchange included a new motor arrangement including a new motor frame to solve the vibration problems. This upgrade works well and there is no vibration anymore. Following pictures show the new configuration:

New torsion shaft

Reused Gearbox

Reuse APU

Reuse APU

New configuration and coupling arrangement

New electric motor

New machine frame



Gearbox: The Gearboxes are still original Kissling, but there is a good maintenance and rebuilds program in place:

� Perform rebuilds every 5 years � Change oil every year because of many hours of operation � Years ago they wore out a gearbox and it broke, repaired it in 3 days. � Added gearbox temperature sensors � Do oil samples, but are on schedule with oil change periodically every max. 5’000 hours

Electric Motors and Drives: There is also a good maintenance and rebuilds program in place for motors and drives: The motors are rebuilt every 25’000 hours

There are the original APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) in use. Those APU’s are for evacuation only. There is no full Stand-by motor or gen-set in place, but this is out for tendering right now. Clear operating procedures are posted in the machine room:

Bullwheels: Bullwheel bearings every 7 years or 35’000 hours. Sometimes sooner, but never longer They have replaced all bullwheels because of cracking issues Still have cracking issue. Keep a close eye on it It is a one piece design, not split. A cause might be the CAT type design of those bullwheels which is required for this carriage frame.

Brake unit: Original brake unit

Tensioning system Original tension system in all 3 Systems



3.3. Cabin Parking

Currently there is no cabin parking/storage existing.

3.4. Controls

Have not replaced the controls yet. Town of Mountain Village has scheduled to replace it in 2018. This would make it redundant!

This Installation is equipped with the lightning protection system which is unique in the ropeway industry.

3.5. Tower

Some tower platforms are cracking due to vibration on Section 1 in front of top station. This needs to be monitored!

All towers got painted this year

3.6. Sheave Assemblies

2007: replaced all CTEC sheaves to Garaventa sheaves to accommodate AGA grips The sheave assembly maintenance program is good and performed. They put level on the sheave assemblies (lift rope off a check bushing condition with level), which shows professional work.

3.7. Grip

Doppelmayr USA requires grip refurbishment every 35’000 hours. Doppelmayr Austria is OK with 45 – 50’000 hours as long as the required grip force is reached

50% of the grips got refurbished between 40 – 45’0000 hours Next year they finish the other 50% of the grips. In 7 years they should be back at 40’000 hours considering an average of 5’000 operating hours per year.

Lightning protection



3.8. Hanger arms

All the hanger arms are state-of-the-art Doppelmayr design standard even with different adoptions for the different cabin types.

3.9. Cabins

To follow is a cabin purchase history showing the different types of cabins in use:

Cabin purchase history

Year Qty Type Comment

1992 1 CWA OMEGA-s rescue with wider door for ADA access

1992 25 CWA OMEGA-s

1997 1 CWA OMEGA-s wheelchair with wider door for ADA access

1997 5 CWA OMEGA-s

1999 7 CWA OMEGA-s

2000 9 CWA OMEGA-III

2002 7 CWA OMEGA-III XL

2005 5 CWA OMEGA-III XL



total to date: 64

3 of the original OMEGA-s cabins purchased in 1992 had manual doors for ADA purposes. Those were too difficult to handle and therefore replaced. In 2005 Doppelmayr damaged 2 cabins during load test and replaced them with 2 new OMEGA-III cabins. That leaves a total of 59 cabins in the system where 48 are operated in S1 & S2 and 11 in S3.

4-point suspension



Age Conclusion: Due to the subsequent addition of cabins, over 50% of the cabins are maximum 17

years old or younger! Following cabin types are currently in the System:

8 passenger Cabins

Type Qty

CWA OMEGA-s 34

CWA OMEGA-s with wider door 2

CWA OMEGA-III 11

CWA OMEGA-III XL 12

total to date: 59

“Old” cabin type OMEGA-s “Newer” cabin type OMEGA-III

“Old” cabin type OMEGA-s “Newer” cabin type OMEGA-III



Cabin features:

� Solar panel for 2 way radio � Motorola in the roof ceiling � Passengers don’t know it is 2 way radio communication � Cabin ventilation is OK because of location. � Windows in the doors are not very effective, only the front and rear flip windows.

Bike Rack: There are two different types of bike racks, one on the door and one on the back of the cabins. The Operator needs to lift the bikes to rack on the door. The racks on the back of the cabin works better, because the ones on the door interfere with the loading people.

Recommendation: We recommend to re-evaluate the bike rack solution. There are different systems on the market which can be looked at. In our mind it is important to have only ONE type of system to avoid confusion by the users

Cabin Maintenance: cabins come off once a month for inspection

Front and Rear Windows

Window in the doors

Bike Rack on the door



The maintenance team has an excellent cabin refurbishment program in place:

The lift mechanics are redoing the complete cabin. The cabin gets disassembled and stripped down to the frame. Those frames are shipped to a shop where they get sandblasted and repainted. All joints get inspected and new window panels get installed (the old ones are too thin to grind off). 30 – 34 cabins will be refurbished by the end of this year => this is over 50%

There are still cabins on the line which need this refurbishment badly, e.g. some of the windows are in such shape that it is hard to see through. Recommendation: The lift mechanics are doing a good job in this refurbish program, but after that

there would be a cleaning crew needed to keep the cabins in the shape they are supposed to be in. It is a common problem, once vandalism starts, it will get bad very quickly. This can be avoided to a high degree if the cabins are kept clean.

Cabin availability: CWA OMEGA-III: This is the older style and not in standard production anymore. CWA can still

produce this type of cabin, but it will be more expensive depending on parts availability and other possible production of same cabins for other installations

CWA OMEGA-IV: Is the current CWA standard cabin. This type of cabin can be used, but additional weight and shape needs to be considered in the system design (Rope Line Calculation, towers, etc.)

3.10. Rope

Following ropes are currently in operation: 2008: new rope on S1 and 2: Fatzer dia. 44mm, 6 x 25 compacted 2010: new rope on S3: Fatzer dia. 44mm, 6 x 25 compacted Norm Duke (wire rope specialist) advized to replace the haul ropes in 2018. Therefor the budget considers a downpayment of USD 150’000 in 2017 for replacement in 2018.

It is very difficult to name an expected lifetime of a rope, because there are many factors and circumstances that play a role. Just to mention a rough estimate, based on the bending circles and an average of 5’000 operating hours per year, the ropes would have the following life time to expect:

� S1: another 6 – 7 years � S2: another 2 - 3 years � S3: another 1 - 2 years



Please Note: Those are theoretical values only! The actual rope condition needs to be evaluated by

an expert like Norm Duke! It is important to know that the rope usually gives enough indication when the time for an exchange comes close. Those indications are measured in number of single wire failures within certain time frames.

3.11. Foundations

We have not done any actual foundation inspections, mainly due to the fact that it is not easy to evaluate what is under the ground, but we looked at the design and calculations provided by Doppelmayr with following conclusion: Station Foundations: They are well designed and sized, even for a future capacity increase. The building walls of the Angle Stations are also part of the Station Foundation

adding additional mass. Tower Foundations: These foundations are on the limit. Actually they would not meet the calculation

requirements per current codes and industry standards. Those requirements have changed since its original design in such a way that bigger foundations and towers would be required

4. Summary of Technical System Condition

Due to the professional and continuous maintenance as well as the ongoing component replacements and upgrades, the whole system is in very good condition. Considering the major upgrades performed in 2007 and 2008, which eliminated the weaknesses (such as conveyor trains, bullwheels, sheave assemblies, grips, etc.) of the original design, we feel comfortable to state this is the equivalent of an 8 year old installation with 40’000 hours. Even though the system has a total of 100’000 hours, the main and most critical components were replaced 2008 and/or later which means considering an average of 5’000 operating hours per year it results in 40’000 hours on the critical components. Older and original items are:

� Steel structure � Partially drive train (gearbox, APU, etc.) � Tensioning Systems � Brake units � Controls � Cabins � Etc.

All those items are still in good condition and we don’t see an immediate replacement need if maintenance is performed as up to now. Please see details under item 3.

Recommendation: � Re-evaluate the bike rack solution. � Add and dedicate a cabin cleaning group to the operating team � All the bullwheels were replaced, but some have still cracking issues. Keep attention on those

in case a problem in the machine frame develops � Install full power backup in order to operate the system in case of power outage => already

under tender process � An upgrade of the controls would add more safety and redundency.



System Requirements: We identified three items that would benefit the system and its purpose:

� Higher capacity: There are long waiting lines especially on S1 and S2 during peak times (weekends, events, etc.). More capacity can only be achieved by adding more cabins

� LWI cabins: “Level Walk In” would benefit 3 purposes: - Help to achieve a higher capacity due to better loading efficiency - Better ADA access => eliminates the need of stopping the system for ADA loadings - More comfortable loading for passengers, but also easier handling with bikes, stroller, etc.

� Upgrade cabins: There are options to upgrade the comfort in the cabins and provide a better guest experience. Such items can be heated seats, infotainment systems, special seats, WIFI, etc.

Limitations: It is important to know that the original design of towers and tower foundation would not pass current code and industry standards, even without any change in equipment. Those requirements have changed since its original design in such a way that bigger foundations and towers would be required. That means by any change which would add more weight and/or load to the towers as in the original design criterias would be considered as “major modification” which would result in new towers and tower foundations!

This would also be the case if the current “step-up” cabins would be replaced by the same number of LWI cabins. Due to the additional cabin weight and wind surface all the towers and foundations would need to be re-calculated and replaced. The only way to avoid that would be to reduce the number of cabins so the total load does not increase in relation to the existing forces, which would then not be considered as “major modification” and no new calculations would be required. The other option is to add same type of “step-up”cabins for capacity increase purposes but the additional number needs to be or below 9 cabins for S1 & S2 (or optional 10 of the older and narrower “stp-up” style) and 9 cabins for S3 in order to stay withing the original design limits. Even if the system may not pass todays design requirements, that does not mean it is unsafe to operate under its original design parameters, but any major upgrade means automatically a significant impact.

5. Operation and Maintenance Cost Review Our site visits and document review confirmed that there is a good maintenance and operation program in place. On the first impression the cost seem high, but we have to be aware that this system is a public transportation system and not a typical ski are access lift. It can be seen as Urban Transportation System, but with all the chellenges in an mountain environment at 8’750 ft elevation.



5.1. Maintenance Staff:

The maintenance team for the Town of Mountain Village consists of 11 people: 1 Manager, 6 mechanics and 4 electricians. Operational Staffing:

� There are always 2 mechanics on duty during day operation and 3 mechanics at the night shift. Besides the normal tasks, this is important in the case the APU’s need to be operated.

� 1 Electrician is on site all the time � The Maintenance Manager shifts schedule as needed, fills also spots for others if needed.

In detail position and their salary structure:

qty Position hourly yearly total

1 Manager 37.00 $/hour $78'000.00 $78'000.00

1 Assistant Manager 33.00 $/hour $68'000.00 $68'000.00

3 Supervisor 29.00 $/hour $60'000.00 $180'000.00

2 Technicians 24.00 $/hour $50'000.00 $100'000.00

4 Mechanics 20.00 $/hour $42'000.00 $168'000.00

11 Total $594'000.00

Our comments are as follow: � There are definitely not too many people. They must work very efficiently with this setup � Those rates are high compared to ski area operations, but as mentioned in this report before,

we are dealing with a public transportation system and not a ski area operation. In addition I must say that in my opinion the ski area personnel are underpaid for the work they do and the responsibility they have.

� Those rates seem to be in line with other industries. � We need to consider the cost of living in San Miguel County � Those wages help keeping people for a longer time and have better skilled personnel, which

can be essential in an emergency or failure situation

5.2. Operation Staff:

The operation team for the Town Mountain Village consists of 1 Manager, 16 full time Operators and 16 seasonal Employees. They operate the Gondola, Chondola as well as the bus service.

� The 16 full time Operators work 2’080 hours per year. 13.5 operators work on the Gondola and Chondola fulltime all year around

� The 16 seasonal Operators work 1’500 – 1’600 hours which comes to 14.25 full time equivalent

� They have a total of 4 supervisors and 4 additional equivalents Operational Staffing: On a normal day in the summer (chondola is not running) they have 8 Operators on 6 station At the same time there is always 1 supervisor on staff.

� 2 at S1 Bottom station � 1 at S1 Top Station � 1 at S2 Top Station � 2 at S2 Bottom Station



� 1 at S3 Bottom Station � 1 at S3 Top Station

They have day and night shift 5:30am to 3:30pm: 10 hours with 0.5 hour unpaid lunch, 2 paid breaks 2:45pm to 12:45am 10 hours with 0.5 hour unpaid lunch, 2 paid breaks Normally 1 supervisor and 2 or 3 operators will stay for night maintenance which usually takes 2 – 3 hours Their average hourly rate is 14.50 + 1.00 USD/hour. Industry standard is:

� 14 – 16 $/hour for supervisor personnel � around 10 $/hour for operators as a minimum, which might not be feasible for Telluride

5.3. Additional Staff:

Recommendation: We recommend adding a “Cleaning and Service” team as mentioned in the Cabin Section. This would be especially important to keep the cabins in shape.

5.4. O&M Cost

To follow is a char summarizing the O&M costs over the last 12 years. There are always deviations in the Capital Investment cost which have also an impact on the Maintenance Cost, depending if the modifications and/or replacements are done in-house or subcontracted. We can see that the investment between 2006 – 2008 had a positive influence to the maintenance cost. It went slightly down. Otherwise there would have been the risk that the cost will explode due to the starting issues of the original equipment. There is an unusual increase in operation cost from 2014 to 2015 due to raise of labor rates.



2004 2005 2006

cost diff. to prev. Y cost diff. to prev. Y cost diff. to prev. Y

Operations 1'458'779 N/A 1'506'234 3.25% 1'399'228 -7.10%

Maintenance 1'000'435 N/A 1'006'277 0.58% 1'148'604 14.14%

Overhead/Fixed 178'129 N/A 196'000 10.03% 368'239 87.88%

MARRS 72'268 N/A 76'441 5.77% 77'885 1.89%

Total Operating 2'709'611 N/A 2'784'952 2.78% 2'993'956 7.50%

Capital Investment 349'584 N/A 506'058 44.76% 915'930 80.99%

Grand Total 3'059'195 N/A 3'291'010 7.58% 3'909'886 18.81%

2007 2008 2009


Operations 1'480'869 5.83% 1'491'023 0.69% 1'469'554 -1.44%

Maintenance 1'051'366 -8.47% 1'108'670 5.45% 1'053'551 -4.97%

Overhead/Fixed 412'189 11.94% 493'631 19.76% 459'917 -6.83%

MARRS 71'643 -8.01% 76'819 7.22% 74'713 -2.74%

Total Operating 3'016'067 0.74% 3'170'143 5.11% 3'057'735 -3.55%

Capital Investment 2'379'696 159.81% 3'758'559 57.94% 79'279 -97.89%

Grand Total 5'395'763 38.00% 6'928'702 28.41% 3'137'014 -54.72%

2010 2011 2012


Operations 1'448'370 -1.44% 1'503'566 3.81% 1'542'739 2.61%

Maintenance 1'039'287 -1.35% 1'036'546 -0.26% 1'107'875 6.88%

Overhead/Fixed 463'423 0.76% 454'180 -1.99% 470'208 3.53%

MARRS 68'199 -8.72% 70'715 3.69% 73'623 4.11%

Total Operating 3'019'279 -1.26% 3'065'007 1.51% 3'194'445 4.22%

Capital Investment 291'810 268.08% 173'483 -40.55% 191'259 10.25%

Grand Total 3'311'089 5.55% 3'238'490 -2.19% 3'385'704 4.55%

2013 2014 2015


Operations 1'530'250 -0.81% 1'566'704 2.38% 1'661'542 6.05%

Maintenance 1'109'723 0.17% 1'122'519 1.15% 1'194'030 6.37%

Overhead/Fixed 487'400 3.66% 484'729 -0.55% 509'708 5.15%

MARRS 67'701 -8.04% 71'291 5.30% 66'092 -7.29%

Total Operating 3'195'074 0.02% 3'245'243 1.57% 3'431'372 5.74%

Capital Investment 43'043 -77.49% 392'058 810.85% 570'643 45.55%

Grand Total 3'238'117 -4.36% 3'637'301 12.33% 4'002'015 10.03%



In order to make a judgment on the O&M cost we made our own calculation where we tried to compare the same tasks. Due to the unusual “early” major upgrades it is best to compare the average value over a period of time. Therefore we took the average O&M from the last 12 years as per following table:

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Operations 1'458'779 1'506'234 1'399'228 1'480'869 1'491'023 1'469'554

Maintenance 1'000'435 1'006'277 1'148'604 1'051'366 1'108'670 1'053'551

O&M together 2'459'214 2'512'511 2'547'832 2'532'235 2'599'693 2'523'105

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Operations 1'448'370 1'503'566 1'542'739 1'530'250 1'566'704 1'661'542

Maintenance 1'039'287 1'036'546 1'107'875 1'109'723 1'122'519 1'194'030

O&M together 2'487'657 2'540'112 2'650'614 2'639'973 2'689'223 2'855'572

2004 - 20015 average

Operations 18'058'858 1'504'905

Maintenance 12'978'883 1'081'574

O&M together 31'037'741 2'586'478

We compared this average value of USD 2’586’478 with enclosed calculations. We made 2 calculations, because there is quite a difference in the labor “overhead”:

� The calculation in Annex A shows and average O&M cost of USD 1'926'713. This is calculated with an annual salary of $60’000 for skilled personnel (mechanics, electrician, etc.) and $35’000 for operators.

� As we could see from the actual cost spreadsheets provided to us, there is an average of 75% “overhead” on top of the salary which forms the actual annual cost per worker. This is the same for both rates. Therefore please refer to calculation Annex B where we did the same calculation with an annual salary of $105’000 for skilled personnel (mechanics, electrician, etc.) and $61’250 for operators. This results in an average annual O&M cost of USD 3'107'963

Please note:

� Our spreadsheet is calculated over 20 years without any annual inflation increase! � We would be at year 8 now, which is marked with a red frame. � These spreadsheets in Annex A and B are for comparison purposes only. They would need

some adjustment to adopt exactly for this project e.g. number of employed personnel, their individual rates, etc.

6. Summary of Operation and Maintenance Cost Review

We can state with our two O&M cost calculation spreadsheets (Annex A and B) that the actual average O&M cost of USD 2’586’478 are justified. Our comparison calculation with the base salary rate results in an annual O&M cost of just less than 2 mill USD, but with the same approx. 75% “overhead” cost as listed in the actual cost spreadsheet we got for review, we come up with an average annual O&M cost of 3.14 mill USD. Since the actual cost is about in the middle and we know that Telluride is an expensive place to live, we consider the actual cost as OK and justified. In order to narrow down this wide range, we would need to evaluate those approx. 75% “overhead” in detail.



Both teams, the Maintenance and the Operation are definitely not overstaffed. The Operators are important for guest experience and to keep the system capacity high (loading efficiency) and the maintenance staff ensures a high reliability and safety.

Recommendation: We recommend adding a “Cleaning and Service” team as mentioned in the

Cabin Section. This would be especially important to keep the cabins in shape. Recommendation: We recommend having a good “reporting” system with “work orders”, etc. in

place. This can be done by hand or with Maintenance Management Software. Those records are important in case of accidents and incidents. They don’t

prevent it, but help to defend in front of the court.

7. Comparison with other Systems It is almost impossible to compare this system with any other out there due to its unique location and use. The lifts in the ski areas don’t operate that many hours and the urban transportation systems are too young. The Steamboat Silver Bullet Gondola: This one was installed in 1986 and has now approx. 85’000 hours on it. I understand it is ready to get replaced; it is at its life end. There is a 4 passenger gondola in New Zealand which was also built in 1986. The “Skyline Gondola”, Queenstown operates an average of 5’500 hours per year => we assume it has after 29 years between 150 – 160’000 hours on the machine. They even increased capacity 2 years ago by adding more cabins. It is important to know that they operate at reduced speed when capacity is not required, even down to 2.5 m/s All other urban systems like in South America (Medellin, Caracas, La Paz, Rio de Janeiro, etc.) operate many hours but are much younger.

8. Evaluation of Doppelmayr Report To follow is a summary and interpretation of the Doppelmayr Engineering Study:

8.1. System Condition:

Doppelmayr states that due to the past and continued maintenance, along with the capital replacements and upgrades performed, the Mountain Village Gondola system could run indefinitely. Comment: This is a fair statement, assuming the level of maintenance and upgrades is kept at

such a high level as up to date. As stated in this report before, the frequent replacements and upgrades can be seen as new system at some point.

Doppelmayr also points out upgrades which can be made to improve comfort and

reliability such as: � Evacuation system on ring and pinon drive acting directly onto bullwheel with

emergency bearings � “level-walk-in” style cabins � Various cabin options (seat heating, WIFI, etc.) � Dual Loop Derail System (= safeties on towers) � Redundant Rope Position Detection (RPD) system � Multi Drive and Motor Arrangements These are all improvements to the system, but not musts.



8.2. Capacity Increase Scenario 1:

Adding 9 cabins of the current “step-up” style to L1 & L2 would result in a theoretical(!) capacity of 1070 PPH (or 10 of the older and narrower style “step-up” cabins) and adding 9 cabins of the current “step-up” style to L3 resulting in a theoretical(!) capacity of 1200 PPH. This could be done without any major change or investment. Please refer to Scenario 1 in Doppelmayrs Pricing Matrix (Appendix-A) whereby the prices are between $ 141,744 to $ 326,403 per Line (from the least expensive base price to the most expensive price with all options) Total Cost example for 1070/1200 PPH capacity:

Scenario 1 in Doppelmayrs Pricing Matrix

Section Capacity Base Price Price with all Options

L1 and L2 1070 PPH $ 318'924 $ 326'403

L3 1200 PPH $ 318'924 $ 326'403

Total $ 637'848 $ 652'806


Any other option, even adding “level walk in” style cabins and increasing the capacity would raise the price to a multi million Dollar investment. Please see Scenario 2 in Doppelmayrs Pricing Matrix (Appendix-A). Here the prices are between $ 3,788,101 to $ 8,954,116 per Line (from the least expensive base price to the most expensive price with all options). Total Cost example for 2400 PPH capacity:



L1 and L2 2400 PPH $ 13'607'325 $ 15'983'613

L3 2400 PPH $ 4'383'360 $ 5'075'037

$ 17'990'685 $ 21'058'650


The next step would be to replace the complete System with a new one, which is a complete Teardown and New Install. Please see Scenario 3 in Doppelmayrs Pricing Matrix (Appendix-A). Even if the price difference to Scenario 2 does not seem to be too dramatic, between $ 5,018,522 to $ 10,183,612 per Line (from the least expensive base price to the most expensive price with all options), please note this option brings a lot of other costs with it. It requires new buildings, different foundation, etc. which are not included in this price! Total Cost example for 2400 PPH capacity:



L1 and L2 2400 PPH $ 16'126'671 $ 18'489'186

L3 2400 PPH $ 5'575'194 $ 6'259'985

$ 21'701'865 $ 24'749'171 Please note: This price for Scenario 3 does not include any costs for the new station buildings and

foundations which are required for a complete new system



9. Next steps

� We will provide the report for the Chondola by end of November 2016 � I will visit Telluride in September where we can present and/or discuss the report with any

stakeholders � Next step would be to get an Economic Impact Study as base for Phase 2, which ist the

“Desired System and Operation Evaluation => Future System Report”

Best Regards, OUTDOOR ENGINEERS, INC

Oswald Graber President

20161114-telluride mountain village gondola …...2016/11/14 · 8.1. system condition 27 8.2....

Documents