owlsroost Not all European freight hauls and electric locomotives are like that - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iore Six axle, 180 tonnes (396,000 lbs), AC drive, 7200 hp continuous, up to 160,000lbs of starting tractive effort.
Not all European freight hauls and electric locomotives are like that - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iore
Six axle, 180 tonnes (396,000 lbs), AC drive, 7200 hp continuous, up to 160,000lbs of starting tractive effort.
Note also that electric locomotives are rated for power *on the rail*, while diesels are rated for power produced before the alternator (and lose nearly 15% before reaching the rail).
So, one IORE section would be equivalent to nearly 8800 hp (or two times a 4400 hp six-axle unit). And that is not the limit (the Chinese have an 9.6 MW six-axle Bombardier locomotive at 25 metric tonnes/axle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_HXD3B )
N.F.
The railroads have settled on 4300-4400 HP locomotives for mainline service for now. Unless there is a breakthrough in technology I would expect this to continue for the foreseable future.
nfotis owlsroost Not all European freight hauls and electric locomotives are like that - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iore Six axle, 180 tonnes (396,000 lbs), AC drive, 7200 hp continuous, up to 160,000lbs of starting tractive effort. Note also that electric locomotives are rated for power *on the rail*, while diesels are rated for power produced before the alternator (and lose nearly 15% before reaching the rail). So, one IORE section would be equivalent to nearly 8800 hp (or two times a 4400 hp six-axle unit). And that is not the limit (the Chinese have an 9.6 MW six-axle Bombardier locomotive at 25 metric tonnes/axle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_HXD3B ) N.F.
I wish the document was still online (or at least that I still had a copy saved to hardrive) but the Bombardier Powerpoint presentation I mentioned in an earlier reply stated that the IORE Horsepower at the rail was not as high as you described but was rated at 7200 HP.
One of the slides was a graph showing horsepower to the rail at a range of given speeds with the IORE compared to current 44400 and 6000 HP diesels, as well as electrics of comparable power to the diesels. The IORE had the highest power output in the higher speed ranges but all the compared locomotives were about the same in the 0-5 MPH range.
A summary can be found on Pages 8-9 of this document which alkso includes higher speed electics for comparison:
http://www.qca.org.au/getattachment/6d43d196-ed72-4695-84bc-d84fb67ff285/Bombardier-Transportation.aspx
The data was definately adjusted for the "at the rail" rating as;for instance' the 44000 HP diesel electric was rated at 3800 HP at-the-rail..
The diesel rating data was credited to UP's Michael Iden.
However, keep in mind that the chart covered speed ranges common for freight train operations in North America so the highest speed charted was about 79 MPH. Preumable an IORe with different gearing would approximate the figure you cite.
IIRC, the IORE's traction motors are mounted like those on US diesel electrics rather than being nose suspended like many high speed electric locomotives because they are optimized for lower speed pulling power.
A summary
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Please, read my previous response more carefully. We basically say the same thing.
The IORE has a 5.6 MW transformer hourly rating, which is equivalent to 7500+ hp on the rail.
If you get two 4400hp diesel locomotives, and subtract the various losses, the power at the rail is approximately the same as one IORE section.
Also, look at this video, to give a taste of mixed traffic in Europe, with HSR trains running along freight and commuter trains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoEnWc70Qn4
The second half of the video shows iron ore trains (more than 4000 metric tonnes hauled) with two old six-axle electrics (replaced by pairs of 4-axle 6.4 MW electrics these days)
ML
Forgot to mention that a 'quill drive' instead of axle-hung traction motor is preferable due to lower track damage (especially in high speeds).
Axle-hunge traction motors are preferred in lower speed freights due to their lower cost.
For example, the TRAXX locomotive from Bombardier in their 140 km/h freight versions (both diesel and electrics) use axle-hung motors, but in their 160 km/h (100 mph) passenger versions use quill drive.
Here are some data for the old 6-axle electrics shown in the previous video:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB_Class_151
The current 4-axle electrics boast of better than tractive effort of the BR151 on dry rails.
The type replacing the BR151 is the BR189, a 6.4 MW 140 km/h (87 mph) freight locomotive of the Siemens 'Eurosprinter' family: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroSprinter#ES_64_F4
The German Wikipedia has more information about this variant: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_ES64F4
This video should give some sense of these heavy European trains (running along the Rhine): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfVxkiYxcgw
Is there any information to be had on modern quill drive implementations?
"Back in the day" of the GG1, the torque was transmitted through springs. The few pictures I have seen of current quill drive appears to show mechanical links, but how these links are arranged and how many degrees-of-freedom are required to allow motion of the suspended axle relative to the quill is not clear to me.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
GDRMCoThe video shows how completely different Europe is to the US. While the IOREs weigh 180t they've got more power than would be usable on US sized mineral trains....
Why do you think that extra horsepower is not usable?
Stop for a moment thinking in terms of diesel-electric propulsion, where most railroads are using the minimum horsepower (and the smallest amount of locomotives) needed for the job.
Let's say you are using four 6-axle locomotives in order to get adequate hp/ton when pulling a freight train, but in order to start the train, three units are enough regarding tractive effort.
With straight electric locomotives, you would stay at three units, and you could be more productive, since with double horsepower per unit available you can move the train at track speed. So, with a smaller (and more reliable) fleet you could get higher productivity and more trains on the mainline per day (then you hit yard capacity limits, but that's another story...).
So, the same locomotive would be able to haul ore trains and intermodals - the power would be available. Also, in my country a diesel-hauled train costs nearly three times in fuel costs compared to electric energy costs for an electric locomotive/trainset.
Paul Milenkovic Is there any information to be had on modern quill drive implementations? "Back in the day" of the GG1, the torque was transmitted through springs. The few pictures I have seen of current quill drive appears to show mechanical links, but how these links are arranged and how many degrees-of-freedom are required to allow motion of the suspended axle relative to the quill is not clear to me.
The current 'hollow shaft drive' implementations have an elastic connection between the traction motor and the (hollow) axle:
http://s122.photobucket.com/user/Daneelo/media/Occasional%20Train%20Blogging/UniModELoco/E10_hollow_shaftgif.jpg.html
This is an early implementation, from the E10 electric locomotive in the fifties.
An anatomy of this is shown here: http://s122.photobucket.com/user/Daneelo/media/Occasional%20Train%20Blogging/UniModELoco/E10_Gummiringfederantrieb.gif.html
Also, look at http://www.railway-technical.com/Quill-Drive.jpg
This is a more modern implementation, from an Austrian electric locomotive. In German, that method is called Hohlwelle (hollow shaft), and it is representative of bogies/trucks suitable for up to 125 mph operation.
A comparison drawing between a partially hung motor (hollow shaft) and a fully suspended quill drive in the Siemens Vectron is here:
http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/en/interurban-mobility/rail-solutions/locomotives/vectron/technology/modular-locomotive-concept/flexible-drive/the-drive-system/pages/the-drive-system.aspx
Hope this helps,
One of the things that changed was the desire for better control of lateral motion (something the nose-suspended motor does not do very well). If I remember correctly the GG1 handled lateral motion by having the areas of the wheel spokes that the spring 'plungers' bore on able to slide laterally. More modern designs handle this directly with universal joints.
Some interesting discussion (and illustrations) of these systems can be found in this book section.
The Alsthom 'dancing ring' drive had rubber bushings on both the driven and driving joints, so rubber deflection accommodated the lateral motion as well as providing compliance for torque -- this was the system on the locomotives that first exceeded 200 mph.
A system called Buchli drive had a pair of links with pin joints that could vary effective length with a pair of mating sector gears -- I will see if I can find a picture, which is worth a thousand words
-- this allowed connection from a fully-suspended 'sprung' quill gear to a relatively light wheel structure, but was able to transmit 1000+ horsepower without damage or binding. In the original version the axleboxes ran in pedestals, and when it became desirable to allow the axle to 'float' laterally, whether on springs or lubricated plates, a two-axis set of joints (in line with the sector arms at the bottom and with properly curved spherical joints at the wheel pins) rather easily accommodated it. Note that the Buchli drive does not involve any rubber pieces or sliding joints that can age or freeze (see the long and somewhat tired history of rubber pieces on railroad vehicles, for example the discussion of rubber springs in White's book on the American passenger car).
Using the LKAB IORE as a example of something useful to US RRs, let's consider not it's HP figure (7200hp according to wikipedia) but it's tractive effort figures....
From what I understand from the wikipedia listing is that in boost mode at 6mph they're producing 700kN (155,000lbs) and in normal model at 20mph it's only 600kN (135000lbs). Apparently each unit is 180t?
Compare that to say the CSX CW44AH (196t) that has a continuous tractive effort of 645kN (145,000lbs) at 9.8mph. For the extra weight you've got a far more sure footed locomotive (as CSX has found) but what has been discovered by the US RRs is that 4000hp gets the job done just as well in heavy mineral service as 6000hp did when CSX was testing it's AC6000CWs in coal service. Also appears the average CSX coal train is 2000t heavier than the LKAB trains with the average Powder River Basin coal train being 6000t heavier. Both use 3-4 4000-4400hp locomotives.....
Would 7200hp per unit be more effective in coal service? Likely not. Intermodal, you'd certainly be able to get up to track speed faster but on a system not designed for high speed rail operation would it really be needed? Maybe not.
Wizlish A system called Buchli drive had a pair of links with pin joints that could vary effective length with a pair of mating sector gears -- I will see if I can find a picture, which is worth a thousand words
Tell me you don't have a copy of C Hamilton Ellis "The Lore of the Train" laying around your house?
Ellis mentions both "quill drive" and the "Buchli drive" without much as understanding either of them. But who among those writing about the history of railroad technology have a glimmer of understand how the Walschaerts valve gear functions, let along the Baker gear?
The "quill" in the quill drive is the hollow tube concentric with the solid axle. The motor is geared to the quill, but the quill is connected to the axle it surrounds with some manner of either articulated or flexible connection. This allows the axle to bounce up and down with bumps in the track without the heavy motor having to bounce up and down the same amount. This was especially a concern in "the early days" when electric motors were way heavy -- this may be less a problem, apart from very high speed trains, with the lighter weight AC traction motors.
The Buchli drive indeed has a flexible, linkage connection between the gear wheel driven by the motor and the train car or locomotive wheel contacting the track.
The Mystery of the Buchli can be resolved by considering 1) that a device called a 4-bar linkage is perhaps the most versatile motion-generating device for motion in the 2D plane, 2) unconstrained motion in the plane has 3 degrees-of-freedom: up-down, right-left, and rotation, 3) a 4-bar linkage affords one 1 degree-of-freedom, 4) that "gear segment pivot on gear wheel" affords a 2nd degree-of-freedom to the four-bar linkage connecting the gear ring to the rail wheel, 5) 2 degrees of freedom is just what you need to allow the rail wheel to bounce up and down for all rotation angles of the gear wheel while at the same time "locking out" the 3rd plane degree of freedom to transmit the torque.
There will be a quiz on this before the bell ends today's class . . .
The Buchli drive is not strictly a "quill drive" in that it lacks the hollow concentric shaft surrounding the rail-wheel axle. Also, it is a kind of bulky and cumbersome arrangement that may not be fully in dynamic balance (rail pounding problem of the rod-driven steamer), and I don't think it was ever applied to very high speed trains. But yes, it does the same thing as the quill drive in separating the motor from the unsprung mass, and yes, it is entirely mechanical.
Well, it is mechanical in its transmission of torque up to the point that it is not. The wheel motion with bumps may not be strictly up-and-down -- the wheel may tilt if one wheel hits a bump and its opposite wheel on the other axle does not. That tilt is not very much, but that tilt makes the motion of the wheel relative to the gear ring take place in 3D. So maybe there are rubber compliances or bearing tolerances to make this 2D Buchli mechanism function in the 3D world.
So your link suggests that the springs of the GG1 quill drive are replaced by rubber thingies in modern high-speed European locomotives and MU cars? I thought I saw some picture of a "modern" Austrian quill drive linkage, but I never saw a schematic of the linkage and whether that linkage afforded the full degrees-of-freedom needed for the bouncing wheel or whether rubber bushings covered for the multitude of mechanical shortcomings.
A steam locomotive rod drive is also famously overconstrained, where things giving, yielding, or having compliance somewhere makes up the difference.
At the risk of people's eyes glazing over (or maybe some fellow Forum participants rolling their eyes), I have made scholarly contributions to theory of constant-velocity (CV) couplings and considered different possibilities of their use in railroad drive trains. My father V. Milenkovic contributed the constant-velocity power coupling for the rail vehicle roller test stand at Pueblo, Colorado, and I have studied that particular contribution.
The idea vehicle power coupling allows the wheel to articulate in all 5 axes relative to the motor -- up-down, right-left, pitch, yaw, and in-out. It supplies 1 degree of constraint in roll -- this is what transmits the torque. Finally, it has the desirable property of a given angle of rotation of the motor produces an equal angle of wheel rotation -- this is the constant-velocity property. In a car, it prevents vibration or the wheels from squealing or chirping as they are driven to turn.
Your car, if it has front-wheel drive, has this ideal 5-axis constant-velocity power coupling. It actually has 2 such couplings, one to each fron wheel. And each coupling consists of a pair of 2-axis (pitch-yaw) CV joints connected through a spline shaft (giving the in-out articulation). And the roller test stand at Pueblo, Colorado has just such an automotive half-shaft drive train connected to each roller supporting a pair of rail wheels on the stand. It was quite the engineering (read, monetary expenditure) to build such an automotive-type drive capable of withstanding the torques and forces of the railroad application along with any conceivable future railroad application.
When people talk about a "Cardan joint" or a "Cardan shaft", a proper Cardan is not a CV joint as in a front-drive car, rather, it is a universal joint as in a rear-drive car. A rear-drive car has a pair of universal joints (u-joints), one at each end of the drive shaft, and as the rear axle (mostly) is constrained to go up and down, this arrangement forms (an approximate) CV joint from the transmission to the differential feeding torque to the rear wheels.
My understanding is that such a Cardan shaft arrangement is not only the drive on the PCC streetcar, it was also adopted by the Japanese for high-speed Bullet Train MU cars on the New Tokaido Line in the 1960s and by the United Aircraft TurboTrain. A true CV coupling is need on a front drive car on account of the large steering angle on the front wheels, but I have the impression that railroad drives are not fully constant-velocity because the wheel angles and deflections are never that large?
Anyway, full 5-axis CV has always required a pair of 2-axis CV joints separated by a spline shaft giving in-out. Even though you have a total of 2 splines and 4 2-axis CV joints in your car, my impression is that this level of complication is not present in railroad drives on account of 1) not needed, 2) too costly/high maintenance?
I have thought that "what the railroad industry really needs" is a full 5-axis CV linkage connection incorporated into a quill drive. This would solve a whole lot of problems with high-speed rail let alone help bring back long rigid wheel base steam locomotives to a petroleum-short world, but I haven't come up with anything simple and rugged enough.
Paul:
I would not question your knowledge of power transmission systems, but perhaps everyone following this discussion would benefit from a look at the Wikipedia site covering modern tractive power in Russia. We may disagree with the Russians philosophically, but they have been way out in front of the curve as what railroading might look like 50-100 years ahead. They made an early and deep commitment to electrification, and most of their system sits under 25Kv 50 Hz wire. Their original installations were 3 KV DC and gradually are being replaced/upgraded. They have in excess of 20,000 Km under wire and their system is expanding. They also have more than 20,000 motors, with power from a single articulated "two drawbar-connected unit shell" motor up into the 12,000 Hp range, with as many as 12 driving axles.''
I am, as I said before, no Russian apologist, but I suggest they are way ahead of most of the West [excepting Europe] in setting railroad parameters for the distant future. Diesel, be it Tier Zero or Tier 4, can never survive as long as those railroads which can tap renewable power sources.
I view as one of the Greatest American Blunders the FRA allowing freight railroads to "dewire" their already catenery-equipped segments. PRR/Penn Central was the most egregious example. They de-wired the whole Susquehanna divison between Perryman, MD and Harrisburg because it was not supporting any passenger rail service. I believe all/most of the catenary support structure remains in place and could, at least theoretically, support new Constant Tension catenary.
GDRMCo Using the LKAB IORE as a example of something useful to US RRs, let's consider not it's HP figure (7200hp according to wikipedia) but it's tractive effort figures.... From what I understand from the wikipedia listing is that in boost mode at 6mph they're producing 700kN (155,000lbs) and in normal model at 20mph it's only 600kN (135000lbs). Apparently each unit is 180t?
Be careful, this amount is 180 *metric* tonnes.
This translates to 198 short tons.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iore , the tractive effort for each section is:
starting: 700 kN (boost mode), up to 6 mph
sustained: 600 kN, up to 20 mph (what is the tractive effort for a CSX unit at 20 mph?)
The LKAB ore trains are 8.600 metric tonnes (or 9.500 short tons) per dual section locomotive, which looks respectable to me.
Having 5.5-6.5 MW installed power (basically, a transformer) costs you nothing, and gives you immense flexibility. The same locomotives can haul coal at higher speed than in the past, and intermodal the next day.
Less units of motive power - quite possibly.
Miles and miles of catenary to build and maintain with associated overhead costs - definitely. (Sorry, could not resist the pun.)
It is easy to agree that the IORE motors are very impressive and certainly do their assigned tasks very well indeed.
Note also that the IORE runs on a mountainous region, and the tonnage ratings are limited by the siding length.
If these beasts were running on a more flat territory, I suspect their performance would be on par with the big diesels, plus the benefit of double the available horsepower per unit.
A sense of rugged terrain here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGSulGeokUg
And the climate conditions are no fun above the Arctic circle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTYxVSgN7Mg
GDRMCoUS RRs don't want to add urea stations to their fueling pads, do you believe they want to add all that overhead wiring?
It all depends on what they decide they want to be when they grow up. If they don't get serious about how to go about transfroming the network into a serious intermodal network, the question is moot. They are just having a big "going out of business" sale.
Sustained speed is the key to competitive trip times, long crew districts, and high equipment productivity which allows you to provide high value service at low cost.
It just might require stringing lots of catenary.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
nfotis Note also that the IORE runs on a mountainous region, and the tonnage ratings are limited by the siding length. If these beasts were running on a more flat territory, I suspect their performance would be on par with the big diesels, plus the benefit of double the available horsepower per unit. A sense of rugged terrain here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGSulGeokUg And the climate conditions are no fun above the Arctic circle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTYxVSgN7Mg N.F.
Again, I wish I still had the Bombardier powerpoint document that I metioned in my earlier post but one of the points made was that an IORE derived locomotive for North American freight service could be built to have starting tractive effort ratings comparable to what is standard in the industry here. There was a cut away drawing that showed a unit built on a heavy haul road switcher frame with a standard style wide cab. The document mentioned ballasting the unit up (works for CSX increased tractive effort units).
LYMAN S DECAMP I view as one of the Greatest American Blunders the FRA allowing freight railroads to "dewire" their already catenery-equipped segments. PRR/Penn Central was the most egregious example. They de-wired the whole Susquehanna divison between Perryman, MD and Harrisburg because it was not supporting any passenger rail service. I believe all/most of the catenary support structure remains in place and could, at least theoretically, support new Constant Tension catenary.
Keep in mind a fact regarding Conrail ending it's electrified operations; much of that territory (IINM, all of it except the line from Philadelphia to Harrisburg) was owned by Amtrak which did everything it could to push the freight carrier into not running electric motive power under Amtrak's wire..
Always seemed odd that Amtrak could do that given that both they and Conrail were wards of the Federal government at the time..
oltmannd Sustained speed is the key to competitive trip times, long crew districts, and high equipment productivity which allows you to provide high value service at low cost. It just might require stringing lots of catenary.
Which will make all the efforts to be double stack clearanced obsolete as there will need to be additional clearance above the boxes to the wire.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Which will make all the efforts to be double stack clearanced obsolete as there will need to be additional clearance above the boxes to the wire.
nfotis BaltACD Which will make all the efforts to be double stack clearanced obsolete as there will need to be additional clearance above the boxes to the wire. As far as I know, most western railroads have already made a provision for catenary clearances in things like signal masts, etc. N.F.
There are 19th century tunnels and bridges out West too.
Yes, but I've read that they take it into account like he said when something such as a new signal mast is installed.
It doesn't mean that the entire line is ready for catenary, but that they're being proactive with their modern investments on busy routes so that it's one less potential obstacle were electrification to ever occur.
Considering what the carriers have been forced to invest in PTC, the likelyhood of any further Class 1 electricification within our lifetime or the lifetime of our children has the probability of commercial interstellar space travel being actively marketed to the masses.
Why not a PPP scheme, where the federal government helps with the construction of infrastructure?
Even the mighty PRR got a federal loan in order to complete their electrification, and look how many years it did last!
nfotis Why not a PPP scheme, where the federal government helps with the construction of infrastructure? Even the mighty PRR got a federal loan in order to complete their electrification, and look how many years it did last! N.F.
And look at today's PRR. Can't see it can you. Electricification may still exist - PRR doesn't.
What's that have to do with it, though?
It's almost like you're suggesting that their ambitious electrification project is a major contributor to them seeking a merger in the 1960's and the subsquent disaster that was Penn Central and the eventual creation of a federally backed system.
It was anything but. And as seen by thousands of miles of lines under wire around the world that have been built since then, it's hardly an impossibility that major electrification projects may yet return to American freight railroading.
One way that very well could make the numbers work in conjunction with rising fuel prices and increased concern for the environment, is indeed a public-private partnership. We've seen that make several expensive projects possible that didn't project a high enough rate of return for private corporations to allow them to be done exclusively with private capital.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.