In the 9 December magzine section of the Jerusalem Post, a reporter said that use of ground contact as developed by Bombardier would have saved money be eliminating the need for the overhead wire, as well as improving esthetics next to the Old City Wall. I wrote the Post Letters Editor and the reporter with the correction, noting that ground contact systems are more expensive becuase of the complicaton in track construction, plus the need for maintenance and inspection of the automatic devices that power the segmented rail only when the rail vehicle is over the segment. I also pointed out that the system isn't applicable to the area next to the Old City Wall, because this area is grassed, including over the ties between the rails, and there are trees as well. Wet grass and fallen leaves to not make good insulators! The track would have to be paved, with a net esthetic loss in my opinion. The reporter said she doesn't claim to be an expert. But she did accept a freebe trip to Germany to see the new Israel Railways double-deckers under construction at a Bombardier plant there. So far, no correction has been printed.
Also, she has contributed for years to the magazine HaRakevet. I had planned to subscribe to this magazine, but came across a piece in issue No. 80 that affects me directly here in Jerusalem and again has some bad distortions of fact. I would like to subscribe, and if any reader wishes to help me, he or she can contact me at: daveklepper@yahoo.com. I will explain the problem, and then you can tell me if any correction should appear. Thanks..
Dave, can you give us a literal translation of RKV (did I get the root right?) (HaRakevet)?
Johnny
Dave K's comment about ground contact reminded me of the old Washington DC trolley system. Now that was a bit before my time, but the DC trolley system ran on ground contact, the contact being in a "trench" below the road, DC not permitting any overhead wires. What Dave said about the pitfalls of such a system is correct though, the DC system was on paved streets and not through grassy areas.
Trouble with paved streets and underground conduits is that, in most places in the US, they use salt in the winter. Salt's really bad on under street conduits.
To Falcon48: Oh yeah, what you said about salt and underground contacts is totally correct. I suppose what made the DC system workable was the fact that winters in Washington are usually prettty mild, snowfall and ice typically aren't much of a problem. Of course, the DC trolleys have been gone for decades so it's a moot point anyway. I'm not aware of any other city in the US that used that kind of a system.
Firelock76 Dave K's comment about ground contact reminded me of the old Washington DC trolley system. Now that was a bit before my time, but the DC trolley system ran on ground contact, the contact being in a "trench" below the road, DC not permitting any overhead wires. What Dave said about the pitfalls of such a system is correct though, the DC system was on paved streets and not through grassy areas.
From the sounds of it, the ground contact system may not be the same thing as the conduit system used in DC. The "segmented rails" seems to imply the running rails are powered as in a scaled up version of two rail power for model trains (I may be way of on this), where the rails are only energized when a train is in the segment.I don't see this or the conduit system as having any initial or operating cost advantages with respect to overhead wire.
FWIW, there was a book published in the mid-70's titled YV88, an Eco-fiction (eco-fantasy was more like it), that described what I think is the ground contact system. The authors had proposed spring supported rails above feeder conductors, where the weight of the electric railcar would compress the springs and initiate contact between the feeders and running rails. The book did get a couple of things right, fiber optics for communications and computer bulletin board systems.
- Erik
Several cities in Europe and USA had underground electric vaults built in the early 1900's into the center or along side of the rail lines for the collection of power to move the streetcars. These vaults were like the cable car vaults except that the electric wire or rails were attached to the side walls of the vault with one side the positive and the other the negative source of power. Each car had a "Plow" which extended from the car into the vault with spring loaded "shoes" pressing against the power wire or rails. The power was transfered to the controls of the car from one shoe then back to the ground with the other shoe. These systems were more expensive to build and maintain than overhead wire systems, but were required for clear views and esthetic reasons in many capital cities, Berlin, Paris, Washington DC and others.
As with many underground systems where electric is exposed to the weather and wet conditions they did not function well without much repair, maintenance and most were removed after a very short time. The system in Washington DC lasted until 1950 when the streetcars were removed and replaced by bus transportation.
That's what I was referring to as the conduit system - which was the term used by the transit industry 100 years ago. (look at any electric railway engineering textbook or handbook from that era). The conduits were often re-purposed cable car slots.
HaRakevet means The railway or railroad in modern Hebrew, with Rakevet HaKala meaning The Light Railway.
If anyone wishes to subscribe, you can easily the web address or contact me at
daveklepper@yahoo.com and I will provide the information.
But if anyone reading this is currently a subscriber, and has read or has issue No.80, please contact me. Thanks!
The system referred to by the Jerusalem Post was not the conduit system but a surface contact system with the conducting strip about two milimeters above the pavement surface and control boxes that sense when a rail vehicle is directly above and that powers the segmant only when the car is directly above.
Dave,
Thanks for the description of the surface contact system. While it does sound cheaper (well, maybe) to install and operationally more flexible than the conduit system, it also sounds like a royal maintenance headache. I think you are right on the money in saying it is not compatible with grass.
daveklepper In the 9 December magzine section of the Jerusalem Post, a reporter said that use of ground contact as developed by Bombardier would have saved money be eliminating the need for the overhead wire, as well as improving esthetics next to the Old City Wall. I wrote the Post Letters Editor and the reporter with the correction, noting that ground contact systems are more expensive becuase of the complicaton in track construction, plus the need for maintenance and inspection of the automatic devices that power the segmented rail only when the rail vehicle is over the segment. I also pointed out that the system isn't applicable to the area next to the Old City Wall, because this area is grassed, including over the ties between the rails, and there are trees as well. Wet grass and fallen leaves to not make good insulators! The track would have to be paved, with a net esthetic loss in my opinion. The reporter said she doesn't claim to be an expert. But she did accept a freebe trip to Germany to see the new Israel Railways double-deckers under construction at a Bombardier plant there. So far, no correction has been printed.
Dave the reporter may have misunderstood the system that Bombardier was proposing. The Bombardier sytem "Primove" uses contactless inductive power transfer rather than a underground contact rail
Bombardier Primove
The "Primove" system would work better with grass (and be generally safer) than an exposed contact conductor. The initial cost is likely to be much higher than overhead wire and be less efficient as well.
What might make sense is a hybrid approach, overhead wires in most areas, with the "Primove" used in esthetically sensitive areas.
New York also had a conduit system in Manhatten. But I don't think salt was as widely used during most of the trolley era as it is today. I know, for example, that Milwaukee WI didn't start using it extensively until the last years of the North Shore Line. Unfortunately for NSL, the salt impregnated the 3rd rail pickup apparatus and caused problems on the 'L' in Chicago when the trains switched to 3rd rail pickup. Apparently, NSL had to deal with this after snowstorms by hosing down the trucks of southbound trains at Harrison Street in Milwaukee, just after they left the streets.
Cinders, not salt, was the curse or the saving grace on snow and ice for most of the 19th and half the 20th Centuries. As the use of coal fell, so did the availablity of ashes or cinders. And the increased reliance on salt and salt products. I don't think D.C. had that much snow and ice that salt had that much use in the city. Salt became much more prevelant as it was found in more accessble pockets than before.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
daveklepper HaRakevet means The railway or railroad in modern Hebrew, with Rakevet HaKala meaning The Light Railway. If anyone wishes to subscribe, you can easily the web address or contact me at daveklepper@yahoo.com and I will provide the information. But if anyone reading this is currently a subscriber, and has read or has issue No.80, please contact me. Thanks! The system referred to by the Jerusalem Post was not the conduit system but a surface contact system with the conducting strip about two milimeters above the pavement surface and control boxes that sense when a rail vehicle is directly above and that powers the segmant only when the car is directly above.
The route is the verb Rokhave (present tense) or Rakhav (past tense) or lirrkhove. infinituve, to follow. The chariot "rachba" or rachva comes from the fact that the chariot follows the horse or horses. (Soos, soosim) Thus horse and rider were thrown into the sea (The Exodus story) Sus virakhba samu baYam. And Rakevet is a faminine noun. The plurel is Rakevot. Kal is masculine for light and Kala feminine.
Still waiting for someone who had read Issue 80.
There would seem to be some loss in efficiency by tranformer-like inductive coupling. At one time in my life I worked for Mystic Transformer Co., Winchester, MA, and we designed transformers to have as close coupling as possible between the primary and secondary coils. Even then, 98% was about the best we could manage. Close coupling is not possible with one coil on the vehicle and the other buried below ground. I'd say about 80% efficiency is about the best that could be obtained, and this means sufficient power loss.
daveklepper There would seem to be some loss in efficiency by tranformer-like inductive coupling. At one time in my life I worked for Mystic Transformer Co., Winchester, MA, and we designed transformers to have as close coupling as possible between the primary and secondary coils. Even then, 98% was about the best we could manage.
There would seem to be some loss in efficiency by tranformer-like inductive coupling. At one time in my life I worked for Mystic Transformer Co., Winchester, MA, and we designed transformers to have as close coupling as possible between the primary and secondary coils. Even then, 98% was about the best we could manage.
What was the size range produced by Mystic? And how much of the typical loss was due to core loss (eddy current and hysteresis) versus conductor loss? I have a recollection of reading about distribution transformers attaining 99+% efficiency at rated load by using tape wound hypersil or metglas to reduce core losses. I would assume that the tape wound core would have a lower reluctance (higher effective permeability) than a laminated core. The 98% efficiency agrees with what I've read and have been told about conventional transformers.
I did come across a Westinghouse article from 1918-19 where the author claimed over 99% efficiency with a power transformer. They went on to explain that this was an autotransformer...
Power transformer design is easy when compared to designing an audio transformer capable of covering 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
Close coupling is not possible with one coil on the vehicle and the other buried below ground. I'd say about 80% efficiency is about the best that could be obtained, and this means sufficient power loss.
The 80% figure may be optimistic.
It is possible to get good power transfer with loose coupling by having a low loss source of reactive power (e.g. really good capacitors), see the section on coupled resonators in the ARRL Handbook (formerly The Radio Amateur's Handbook). this efficiency is very sensitive to disturbances in the resonant circuits such as caused by the changes in inductance due to changes in car/ground separation.
None of the power transformers I designed were large than 1kW. So 98% was about the best we couild do. This was 1952-1954, when some of the more exotic metals and techniques were still in the future. Alos, we produced pulse transformers requiring extremely high hihg-fruency response, and we deliberately introduced loss--producing air-gaps to linearize the frequency response. Also, conventional, but very high-quality, high-fidelity audio transformers for the tube-type power amplifiers of the time.
The high fidelity audio transformers were really works of art, trying to get a high magnetizing inductance for the low frequencies and low leakage inductance for the high frequencies. Direct coupled outputs are so much easier.
As a D.C. resident in the late 1950s and early 1960s I can tell you that salt did cause problems with the Capital Transit streetcar plows, in that the salt and plenty of melting snow made a wonderful electrolyte for shorting out the below-ground busbars of their conduit system. Another problem was that cars with tire chains mounted on the wheels would sometimes get the chain torn off by getting it caught in the conduit slot, and if there was enough loose chain to contact a busbar below then more fun would ensue (or similarly if a PCC contact plow got torn off when meeting a chain remnant stuck in the slot). This all ended when our all-knowing Congress decreed the demise of D.C. streetcars in the early 1960s (1963 or 64, forget which).
I can confirm that these problems occasionally happened in Manhattan.
Since most of the early cable car and later electric streetcar lines which had the underground vaults for their cables or electric contact were in operation thousand of horse drawn vehicles were in daily use above ground. The track crews had another dirty job of cleaning the vault which was a constant problem with the horse waste and soils washed into the vaults by rains. In addition, since many homes and business burned coal for heat or production the ashes and cinders were spread on the unpaved streets and snow to help improve travel since cinders are hard and could firm up the muddy roads. All of which washed into the underground vaults for the track crews to remove in order to keep the systems running.
Salt on the streets came later in the 1920's as coal burning became less popular in the cities and with paved brick or concrete streets, with new maintenance costs for the street railway systems.
The vaults in most cases were simply paved over after abandonment of the streetcar systems and some sections of the old systems may still be seen in London and in D.C. where the pavement has not yet covered the past or by careful observation of a small depression in the middle of streets where asphalt is pressed down into the vault trough by the weight of traffic.
I have seen some pictures of ground contact systems in what looks like grassed track. On checking, turns out it is artificial grass. something like Astroturf.
A few months ago Railway Track & Structures magazine (or similar - I'll see if I can find it and provide a full citation) had a 'sidebar' article on these trolley or tram systems without overhead or 3rd rail power supplies. Another one that was depicted in it was a 'stud' system that would be sequentially activated as they were contacted by 'skates' under the cars. For about the last 10 years a segmented middle 3rd rail system (Joshua Lionel Cowen is redeemed at last !) has been functioning in much the same manner - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stud_contact_system
- Paul North.
Paris had a similar system in the early 1900's with spring loaded button studs which made electrical contact when depressed by the shoe under the street cars. As with all such systems after a short time accumulations of dirt, ice or weak springs left some of the studs still down and 'Live' which resulted in a few horses being shocked and running away or being killed if water was also present on the streets.
There may yet be a fail-safe system where the cars can be detected and power can turn on exactly under the car and off as it passes or a linerar magnetic field in cables under the right of way may transmit power to the car without exposed overhead or third rail supplies.
There are some systems that use one of these techniques that have operated successfully for more than one year in France. Marceilles is one city. I think the power on-off for when the car is overhead is done via radio control. The stuff does require maintenace and is about four times as expensive as overhead wire for an equal distance.
The article was in the August 2011 edition of Railway Age - "Suppliers Eye Market for 'Hybrid' Streetcars", by Douglas John Bowen, Managing Editor, pp. 29 - 33 inclusive.
Ansaldo STS's "TramWave", Bombardier's "PriMove", and Alstom's "Aesthetic Power Supply" were featured, along with 3 or 4 other battery or fuel-cell systems. More later.
Another lengthy article from Mass Transit magazine, dated June 2011, by John Phythyon: "The Future is Here: Catenary-less Power for Light Rail", at: http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/10262406/the-future-is-here-catenary-less-power-for-light-rail
Ansaldo STS's TramWave - see: http://www.ansaldo-sts.com/en/media/press_releases/asts_2009_06_09_tramwave_eng.html and
http://www.sirio.tw/images/documents/TramWave%20eng.E.pdf (28 pages/ slides, approx. 1.65 MB in size).
Alstom's APS 3-D Animation (About 3 mins. long): http://www.alstom.com/transport/news-and-events/events/alstom-in-Innotrans-2010/sustainable-mobility/APS-3D-animation/
The other on-board power supplies mentioned in the Railway Age article were Kinkisharyo's "ameriTRAM" with a lithium-ion battery which demonstrated here in the US last year; Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc.'s Smooth WIn MOver (SWIMO) streetcar with nickel metal hydride battery; Siemens Sitras Hybrid Energy System (HES), also with an NMH battery plus a double-layer capacitor; CAF's Spanish ACR with an onboard supercapacitor; and Oregon's United Streetcar LLC "United 300" (power not stated).
A "sidebar" article on Washington, D.C. summarized consideration of many of these systems for its planned streetcar system, especially the core central "Federal District" and historic areas where overhead wires would be banned.
Relative to daveklepper's Original Post, some of the articles and public information releases for these systems specifically menion that they can work in grassy areas, too.
I'll see if I can find a link to that Railway Age article. In the meantime, suggest "Googling" any of them for more info.
This should be a direct link to an on-line version in "Nxtbook" format of the Railway Age article: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/sb/ra0811/#/30
If that doesn't work, here's a link to a text-only version of it (no photos, so considerably less helpful): http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_8_212/ai_n58104766/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.