Trains.com

AC TRACTION MOTORS

18071 views
174 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2002
  • 318 posts
Posted by JayPotter on Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:29 PM

 Dutchrailnut wrote:
On a AC powered locomotive the wheelslip is controlled on each traction motor so a 4 axle locomotive is basicly 4 small single axle locomotives in one car body powered by one big diesel.

I agree with this concept in regard to GE units, which have one inverter per axle; but I wouldn't think that it would apply to EMD units, which have one inverter per truck.

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • 217 posts
Posted by AnthonyV on Saturday, September 22, 2007 2:04 PM

For what it's worth, just a few more numbers comparing AC and DC performance.

Data published in Trains' Locomotive special issue for the GE Evolution and EMD 70 series locomotives is as follows:

GE:  4,400 hp,

AC max continuous tractive effort 166,000 lb

DC max continuous tractive effort 109,000 lb

EMD: 4,300 hp

AC max continuous tractive effort: 157,000 lb

DC maximum continuois tractive effort: 113,100 lb

Converting to speed at which maximum traction horsepower is produced yields the following:

GE: AC produces 4,400 traction hp at 9.94 mph vs. 15.2 mph for DC

EMD: AC produces 4,300 traction hp at 10.3 mph vs. 14.3 mph for DC

AC power has a distinct advantage over DC power beyond just slowing down to a crawl to take advantage of its superior resistance to overheating and riding up the tractive effort curve.  AC units have full power available for traction above about 10 mph.  DC units cannot produce full power for traction until about 15 mph.  This consistent with the notion that AC power seems to be assigned to heavy haul coal service.

The performance characteristics of the two types converge at about 15 mph, above which the performance characteristics are problably very similar.  This is consistent with the notion of assigning DC power to high-speed intermodal and other freight.

 Anthony V.

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,366 posts
Re "challenging"
Posted by timz on Saturday, September 22, 2007 6:09 PM

 joemcspadden wrote:

Norfolk Southern is a major coal hauler, and there is no U.S. railroad terrain
any more challenging than the Appalachian and Piedmont regions where this
activity takes place.

No US climb is more "challenging" than the N&W 1.4% grades?

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,366 posts
Posted by timz on Saturday, September 22, 2007 6:15 PM

 MichaelSol wrote:
It takes 8 [SD40-2] locomotives to keep the minimum speed of 11 mph on that [1.2%] grade and curvature....At 2.5 mph, one AC locomotive could still keep the train moving if it didn't slip.

Have I quoted you correctly? You need eight SD40-2s to maintain 11 mph, but one AC can maintain 2.5 mph with the same train on the same railroad-- long as it doesn't slip?

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Saturday, September 22, 2007 6:19 PM

 MichaelSol wrote:
Please review: note above that the most profitable railroads seem to be sticking with DC.

 

A very misleading statement.  The kind of power bought by the railroads have little to do with the profits of said railroads.

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:37 PM
 n012944 wrote:

 MichaelSol wrote:
Please review: note above that the most profitable railroads seem to be sticking with DC.

A very misleading statement.  The kind of power bought by the railroads have little to do with the profits of said railroads.

Considering motive power is one of the single largest categories of capital investment as well as operating costs, I would say your statement is highly misleading.

In any case, the original comment was:

"But it is interesting to note that the two most profitable class one railroads (in terms of the best operating ratios) are the two roads who have chosen to align themselves with DC power." Joe made the statement my post referred to it as I thought it was an interesting observation. It may be just a coincidence.

I am sure that management choices on significant items of investment and cost have nothing to do with profits.

 

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:40 PM
 timz wrote:

 MichaelSol wrote:
It takes 8 [SD40-2] locomotives to keep the minimum speed of 11 mph on that [1.2%] grade and curvature....At 2.5 mph, one AC locomotive could still keep the train moving if it didn't slip.

Have I quoted you correctly? You need eight SD40-2s to maintain 11 mph, but one AC can maintain 2.5 mph with the same train on the same railroad-- long as it doesn't slip?

A TE curve is pretty steep at the lower speeds. This is where the phrase comes from "a diesel can't pull what it can start, etc. ...".

Click on these images to bring them up in a readable window ...

 

 

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Nanaimo BC Canada
  • 4,117 posts
Posted by nanaimo73 on Saturday, September 22, 2007 8:24 PM
 MichaelSol wrote:
 n012944 wrote:

 MichaelSol wrote:
Please review: note above that the most profitable railroads seem to be sticking with DC.

A very misleading statement.  The kind of power bought by the railroads have little to do with the profits of said railroads.

Considering motive power is one of the single largest categories of capital investment as well as operating costs, I would say your statement is highly misleading.

Actually, it is the other way around. Railroads like CP and MRL that have to move heavy trains over mountains have the higher operating costs, and they are forced to buy AC locomotives to try and keep those operating costs down.

CN has the best operating ratio because of their route stucture. They have three central hubs, which are connected to each other and the three coasts with 6 mainlines, which are virtually gradeless. CN does not need AC locomotives because their operating costs are low.

Dale
  • Member since
    May 2002
  • 318 posts
Posted by JayPotter on Saturday, September 22, 2007 8:46 PM

 MichaelSol wrote:
A TE curve is pretty steep at the lower speeds.

Theoretically it is; but in actuality it's horizontal at low speed (on AC-traction units at speeds from around 10 mph and below) because the unit's adhesion-management software limits the tractive effort that each traction motor can produce.  For example, an AC4400CW with standard software operating under ideal rail conditions will begin to produce 180,000 pounds of TE when its speed falls to 9.78 mph; but TE will not increase as speed continues to drop.  That's because each traction motor is software-limited to 30,000 pounds of TE. 

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Chicago, Ill.
  • 2,843 posts
Posted by al-in-chgo on Saturday, September 22, 2007 10:28 PM
 timz wrote:

 joemcspadden wrote:

Norfolk Southern is a major coal hauler, and there is no U.S. railroad terrain
any more challenging than the Appalachian and Piedmont regions where this
activity takes place.

No US climb is more "challenging" than the N&W 1.4% grades?

 

Actually, just think of the now-inactive Saluda grade.  It's almost three times as steep.

As for the old Norfolk & Western, I don't mind it or the new NS being characterized as an Appalachian hauler.  But not all their routes are creepy, crawly or twisty.  In TRAINS last year I read that the Chattanooga - Knoxville - Bristol - Roanoke - Lynchburg line (pre-merger the Bristol-to-Lynchburg segment was N&W's) is getting more business than ever, much of it stacks, from the Southern's former territory.  Although mostly single-tracked, the route is a good way to slip between the cracks in the Appalachian ridges (my characterization, not TRAINS'). 

It's good to remember that not all the old N&W lines were deep-coal lines; and I'm happy to see that the old "Pelican" route is proving its use again.  In fact, that line runs right by my old high school in Glade Spring!   -  a. s. 

 

 

al-in-chgo
  • Member since
    July 2007
  • 105 posts
Posted by joemcspadden on Saturday, September 22, 2007 10:34 PM
 timz wrote:

 joemcspadden wrote:

Norfolk Southern is a major coal hauler, and there is no U.S. railroad terrain
any more challenging than the Appalachian and Piedmont regions where this
activity takes place.

No US climb is more "challenging" than the N&W 1.4% grades?



I thought my statement was self-explanatory. i said nothing about a
"single climb." i was referring to the fact that NS operates trackage in
Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee that
totals thousands of miles--much of it with tunnels, trestles, steep
grades, etc., etc. And one heck of a lot of long and heavy coal trains are
operated in this challenging region.

Michal Sol is absolutely correct in pointing out that the proflle of this
region differs significantly from some of the challenging western
divisions and may well dictate different engine choices--even when
the same methods of analysis are used by the various railroads.

All I was trying to say was that NS hasn't chosen DC power because
it only has easy level track to deal with or because it doesn't haul
much coal. To the contrary.

Joe
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Saturday, September 22, 2007 11:22 PM
 AnthonyV wrote:

The performance characteristics of the two types converge at about 15 mph, above which the performance characteristics are problably very similar.  This is consistent with the notion of assigning DC power to high-speed intermodal and other freight.

 Anthony V.

The characteristics of AC and DC motors never converge as far as rail horsepower is concerned. The AC induction motor has a 5% to 7% advantage in rail horsepower produced over a DC motor for a given nominal traction horsepower rating. The AC motors efficiency actually increases at higher speed. This is well documented by CSX's use of C60ACs and C44ACs in intermodal service.

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Gateway to Donner Summit
  • 434 posts
Posted by broncoman on Sunday, September 23, 2007 12:10 AM

Forgive me if this question seems absurd, but I live near the line over Donner so I only see UP and BNSF power regularly. Does the ES44DC come in a CONTROLLED TRACTIVE EFFORT version?  It would seem this is a AC only ability at this time.  Do the DC units lend themselves to unmanned helper operations?  It sounds like from the conversation that the DC unit heavy roads use dedicated helpers as opposed to unmanned helpers.  This may be an incorrect assumption.  I would be curious if NS would have a different loco makeup if it operated the UP or BNSF roads. 

  

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Sunday, September 23, 2007 12:24 AM
 broncoman wrote:

Forgive me if this question seems absurd, but I live near the line over Donner so I only see UP and BNSF power regularly. Does the ES44DC come in a CONTROLLED TRACTIVE EFFORT version?  It would seem this is a AC only ability at this time.  Do the DC units lend themselves to unmanned helper operations?  It sounds like from the conversation that the DC unit heavy roads use dedicated helpers as opposed to unmanned helpers.  This may be an incorrect assumption.  I would be curious if NS would have a different loco makeup if it operated the UP or BNSF roads. 

The CTE software package limits AC motored locomotives to TE ratings similar to DC locomotives. This ability is used on manifest and similar mixed consist trains where too much push by the DPU locomotives at low speeds could push light weight cars off the tracks on curves. 

  • Member since
    July 2007
  • 105 posts
Posted by joemcspadden on Sunday, September 23, 2007 12:24 AM
 broncoman wrote:

Forgive me if this question seems absurd, but I live near the line over Donner so I only see UP and BNSF power regularly. Does the ES44DC come in a CONTROLLED TRACTIVE EFFORT version?  It would seem this is a AC only ability at this time.  Do the DC units lend themselves to unmanned helper operations?  It sounds like from the conversation that the DC unit heavy roads use dedicated helpers as opposed to unmanned helpers.  This may be an incorrect assumption.  I would be curious if NS would have a different loco makeup if it operated the UP or BNSF roads. 

  



Your final sentence cuts to the very heart of the matter doesn't it? Or,
better yet, stand the question on its head: would the NS territory have
a different locomotive makeup if operated by UP or BNSF? Okay, people--
what do you think? i would LOVE to hear everyone's answer to these
questions!

Joe
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, September 23, 2007 10:11 AM
 nanaimo73 wrote:
 MichaelSol wrote:
 n012944 wrote:

 MichaelSol wrote:
Please review: note above that the most profitable railroads seem to be sticking with DC.

A very misleading statement.  The kind of power bought by the railroads have little to do with the profits of said railroads.

Considering motive power is one of the single largest categories of capital investment as well as operating costs, I would say your statement is highly misleading.

Actually, it is the other way around. Railroads like CP and MRL that have to move heavy trains over mountains have the higher operating costs, and they are forced to buy AC locomotives to try and keep those operating costs down.

CN has the best operating ratio because of their route stucture. They have three central hubs, which are connected to each other and the three coasts with 6 mainlines, which are virtually gradeless. CN does not need AC locomotives because their operating costs are low.

The comment was addressed to the notion that motive power purchases don't have anything to do with profitability. Didn't say anything about specifics -- merely that the gentleman's general contention is haywire.

As to "the other way around", my earlier post, walking through some numbers to see what popped out, did, indeed support the notion that Western roads and Eastern railroads have different needs generated by profile differences and that these differences appear to readily justify different power choices.

Originally posted by MichaelSol

And perhaps that is a key. For what little I know about the Appalachians, the ups and downs are considerably more condensed than the long grade profiles of Western railroads. A DC Traction Motor can certainly take its share of overheating for a short period, and for so long as that demand on the motor is limited to short intervals, a DC locomotive is a better investment.

... 

I would guess therefore that the decision to purchase AC or DC is very profile specific and that NS's analytical approach is identical to the UP approach -- but their profiles generate different results.

Indeed, if what the gentleman said had any merit at all -- "The kind of power bought by the railroads have little to do with the profits of said railroads." -- railroads would not be spending any time looking at merits of AC v DC and we would not be having this conversation on this thread.

It was a baseless remark -- 'highly misleading".

 

 

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Gateway to Donner Summit
  • 434 posts
Posted by broncoman on Sunday, September 23, 2007 10:47 AM

Has there been studies done so far on the durabilty of AC vs DC units?  The AC4400 has been in service for close to if not more than 10yrs now as has the SD70/80/90.  I would be curious as the the cost per mile.

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, September 23, 2007 10:48 AM
 JayPotter wrote:

 MichaelSol wrote:
A TE curve is pretty steep at the lower speeds.

Theoretically it is; but in actuality it's horizontal at low speed (on AC-traction units at speeds from around 10 mph and below) because the unit's adhesion-management software limits the tractive effort that each traction motor can produce.  For example, an AC4400CW with standard software operating under ideal rail conditions will begin to produce 180,000 pounds of TE when its speed falls to 9.78 mph; but TE will not increase as speed continues to drop.  That's because each traction motor is software-limited to 30,000 pounds of TE. 

Now, this is interesting. It makes the TE curve look more like that of ... a steam engine!

What is the purpose of this software limitation?

 

 

  • Member since
    May 2002
  • 318 posts
Posted by JayPotter on Sunday, September 23, 2007 11:07 AM

 MichaelSol wrote:
What is the purpose of this software limitation?

Between 180K and 200K to avoid excessive mechanical stress within the traction motor; and above 200K both to avoid that stress and to avoid coupler failures when operating two-unit consists.

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • 217 posts
Posted by AnthonyV on Sunday, September 23, 2007 11:58 AM
 GP40-2 wrote:
 AnthonyV wrote:

The performance characteristics of the two types converge at about 15 mph, above which the performance characteristics are problably very similar.  This is consistent with the notion of assigning DC power to high-speed intermodal and other freight.

 Anthony V.

The characteristics of AC and DC motors never converge as far as rail horsepower is concerned. The AC induction motor has a 5% to 7% advantage in rail horsepower produced over a DC motor for a given nominal traction horsepower rating. The AC motors efficiency actually increases at higher speed. This is well documented by CSX's use of C60ACs and C44ACs in intermodal service.

GP40-2

Interesting - I was not aware there was that much of a difference between the two at higher speeds.

Do you have a graph showing the tractive effort vs speed curve for AC and DC?  It would be useful if we all understood the performance differences between the two types.

Thanks

Anthony V.

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Sunday, September 23, 2007 1:42 PM
On a GE locomotive with a 4400 nominal traction HP rating, The AC version produces nearly 400 more rail HP @70 mph than the DC version. I've discussed this in past posts using test data from CSX locomotives.
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 803 posts
Posted by GP40-2 on Sunday, September 23, 2007 1:57 PM
The other thing to realize is that this discussion would only happen on a RR forum. North American railroads are the last holdout in the world for large DC motors. Everybody else switched to AC frequency drives for heavy industrial use years ago. You would be hard pressed to find a modern production facility anywhere that hasn't switched to AC.
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, September 23, 2007 2:00 PM

 GP40-2 wrote:
On a GE locomotive with a 4400 nominal traction HP rating, The AC version produces nearly 400 more rail HP @70 mph than the DC version. I've discussed this in past posts using test data from CSX locomotives.

How much does that additional horsepower cost?

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Sunday, September 23, 2007 2:54 PM
Michael, you are asking real-time lifetime?  Initial outlay?  Both?
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,366 posts
Posted by timz on Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:03 PM
 timz wrote:
 MichaelSol wrote:
It takes 8 [SD40-2] locomotives to keep the minimum speed of 11 mph on that [1.2%] grade and curvature....At 2.5 mph, one AC locomotive could still keep the train moving if it didn't slip.

Have I quoted you correctly? You need eight SD40-2s to maintain 11 mph, but one AC can maintain 2.5 mph with the same train on the same railroad-- long as it doesn't slip?

So that is what you meant to say? On further reflection, doesn't that strike you a bit unlikely? The eight SD40-2s produce 650,000+ lb of TE at 11 mph, don't they?

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:40 PM
 MichaelSol wrote:
 nanaimo73 wrote:
 MichaelSol wrote:
 n012944 wrote:

 MichaelSol wrote:
Please review: note above that the most profitable railroads seem to be sticking with DC.

A very misleading statement.  The kind of power bought by the railroads have little to do with the profits of said railroads.

Considering motive power is one of the single largest categories of capital investment as well as operating costs, I would say your statement is highly misleading.

Actually, it is the other way around. Railroads like CP and MRL that have to move heavy trains over mountains have the higher operating costs, and they are forced to buy AC locomotives to try and keep those operating costs down.

CN has the best operating ratio because of their route stucture. They have three central hubs, which are connected to each other and the three coasts with 6 mainlines, which are virtually gradeless. CN does not need AC locomotives because their operating costs are low.

The comment was addressed to the notion that motive power purchases don't have anything to do with profitability. Didn't say anything about specifics -- merely that the gentleman's general contention is haywire.

It was a baseless remark -- 'highly misleading".

I didn't say that it had nothing to do with profitability, it just has very little to do with it.  There are many reasons for the NS and CN operating ratio, and locomotive choice is but a very small reason.

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:51 PM
 timz wrote:
 timz wrote:
 MichaelSol wrote:
It takes 8 [SD40-2] locomotives to keep the minimum speed of 11 mph on that [1.2%] grade and curvature....At 2.5 mph, one AC locomotive could still keep the train moving if it didn't slip.

Have I quoted you correctly? You need eight SD40-2s to maintain 11 mph, but one AC can maintain 2.5 mph with the same train on the same railroad-- long as it doesn't slip?

So that is what you meant to say? On further reflection, doesn't that strike you a bit unlikely? The eight SD40-2s produce 650,000+ lb of TE at 11 mph, don't they?

A little low, but depending on measured rail hp that could be about right. My numbers came from a GE locomotive test program which has a little more to it (and also dates from pre-traction motor software limitation days), but if you want to walk through the basic TE equation, the single unit AC (recall, SD40-2, 3000 engine hp v GE AC 4400 engine hp, and the AC generates a higher rail hp compared to its engine rating than the DC) at 2.5 mph would generate 660,000 lbs TE but for the software restriction. That is pretty much what is described by the TE curves I posted above.

TE=(hp*375)/speed

In round numbers, using engine hp:

Eight locomotives x 3000 hp x 375 / 11 mph = 818,182 lbs TE

One locomotive x 4400 hp x 375 / 2 mph = 825,000 lbs TE

What is unlikely?

 

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:52 PM

 selector wrote:
Michael, you are asking real-time lifetime?  Initial outlay?  Both?

Well, we don't have much on the lifetime outlays yet, so I am thinking purchase price per hp.

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 2,366 posts
Posted by timz on Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:54 PM
 MichaelSol wrote:
One locomotive x 4400 x 375 / 2 mph = 825,000 lbs TE

What is unlikely?

So what do you figure for the AC's tractive effort at 0.1 mph?

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • 3,190 posts
Posted by MichaelSol on Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:57 PM
 timz wrote:
 MichaelSol wrote:
One locomotive x 4400 x 375 / 2 mph = 825,000 lbs TE

What is unlikely?

So what do you figure for the AC's tractive effort at 0.1 mph?

You keep returning to this like you want to argue about something. I have posted TE graphs for your perusal, and offered you the fairly straightforward TE equation that you can play with with any numbers you want. Why do you want me to answer this question?

What's your point?

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