Trains.com

Shanghai Metro uses overhead catenary

10038 views
36 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2008
  • 1,112 posts
Posted by aegrotatio on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:13 PM
This is fascinating. I'm watching the Washington DC Metro's Silver Line being built from East Falls Church to Dulles. To my non-electrical-engineering mind, the close placement of the electrical substations every couple of miles just cries out for optimization.

Naturally since the system will be integrated with the Orange Line, this is necessary. I wonder what sort of propulsion would be appropriate for a dedicated, heavy-rail line of 23 miles with 18 stations that didn't have to account for any old system? I say overhead AC to avoid the cost of acquiring land and utility for all of those substations. I wonder about acceleration between stations, too.

To be fair, they truck these prefabricated structures in and build walls around them. I also wonder about power consumption and loss as we go AC-DC-AC.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,852 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, March 4, 2013 10:16 PM

all  these arguments about the power source ignores the fact almost all traction motors are now beiing buit AC. AMTRAK certainly will not be buying any more DC and the class 1s are very close.   Any light rail / streetcar that is now being built north of N 40 appears to be all AC traction. I m sure there are exceptions. With AC traction the problems of snow, ice, sand grounding out DC motors is eliminated.  as other posters have nooted there is somewhat  more electronics with AC transmission but if AC traction is used anyway ??????

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,029 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:49 AM

When building a new line, many considerations are brought to bear on power distribution selection.  If subways and tunnels predominate, catenary may require large tunnels for clearances.   Third rail power with frequent substations might be expensive because of the cost of realestate.   The question of frieght service and possible fowling of third rail by unusual freight equipment might be considered.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,492 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:04 AM

The Chicago Transit Authority continues with 600VDC third-rail for distribution but has converted to AC traction with the 5000-series cars now being delivered.  Subsequent orders now in the proposal stage will continue with AC traction.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:42 AM

blue streak 1

 as other posters have nooted there is somewhat  more electronics with AC transmission but if AC traction is used anyway ??????

Keep in mind that almost all of the drive electronics for AC traction motors run off of a DC bus. There are circuits called cycloconverters that will convert AC to any frequency from zero to one third of the line frequency, but for anything but a fractional horsepower motor, you will want to run it off a three phase line.

- Erik

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 2 posts
Posted by drewh on Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:04 PM

The RER in Paris uses overhead electrification as does the Tyne and Wear metro in the UK.  The Budapest metro line one does too, but it basically was a street car line that was put underground in the 1880's.  Septa's centre city commuter tunnel in Philly has catenary, but of course it's the former Penn and Reading suburban lines.  There is a phase break in the tunnel as the 2 systems used different voltage.  In know the Pennsy side is the same as Amtrak at 12.5 kv, can't remember what the Reading side uses.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,447 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:19 PM

drewh
can't remember what the Reading side uses.

Was the 'same' 11kV that the old PRR electrification used.  Probably no point in increasing it (no long heavy trains coexisting with very fast trains).

If I remember correctly, back in '76 when 4800 was pulling the Reading MUs to Trenton, the 'issue' about their not going under their own power was one of signaling and control, not overhead voltage.  At least one pan in the train was up for lighting and heat.

RME

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy