# Metra Electrification



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

Recently, Metra has contemplated electrifying the Rock Island District (as they own the tracks) as part of a set of improvements they announce for the system. I do think if they want to electrify the Rock Island District, they could also electrify other lines that see high frequency and ridership, such as the BNSF Line and the Union Pacific District lines. 

* 16th Street Connection: This will involve building a flyover to 16th Street tracks and a new bridge to the St. Charles Air Line, giving the Rock Island District and Metra Electric District access to Union Station, unifying the two lines with the main Metra Network. LaSalle and Millennium Station will still be retained however.
* Re-electrification of the Metra Electric District from 1500 V DC to 25 kV 60 Hz AC. This also extends to the South Shore Line (as it uses Metra Electric District tracks)

In terms of rolling stock, as Metra Electric District uses bi-level trains, Metra can use the Stadler KISS, as Stadler is manufacturing them for Caltrain. This will replace the Nippon Sharyo Highliner IIs used on the Metra Electric District (and the single-level EMUs for South Shore Line; South Shore Line can order a different fleet of single-level EMUs)


----------



## west point

Not enough vertical clearance at Union Station for 25 Kv 60 Hz. Somehow vertical clearances will need to be corrected first and that will not be cheap !


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

west point said:


> Not enough vertical clearance at Union Station for 25 Kv 60 Hz. Somehow vertical clearances will need to be corrected first and that will not be cheap !



What's Union Station's vertical clearance?


----------



## west point

Observed that it is less than 12 inches from top of Superliners !


----------



## ms garrison

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Recently, Metra has contemplated electrifying the Rock Island District (as they own the tracks) as part of a set of improvements they announce for the system. I do think if they want to electrify the Rock Island District, they could also electrify other lines that see high frequency and ridership, such as the BNSF Line and the Union Pacific District lines.
> 
> * 16th Street Connection: This will involve building a flyover to 16th Street tracks and a new bridge to the St. Charles Air Line, giving the Rock Island District and Metra Electric District access to Union Station, unifying the two lines with the main Metra Network. LaSalle and Millennium Station will still be retained however.
> * Re-electrification of the Metra Electric District from 1500 V DC to 25 kV 60 Hz AC. This also extends to the South Shore Line (as it uses Metra Electric District tracks)
> 
> In terms of rolling stock, as Metra Electric District uses bi-level trains, Metra can use the Stadler KISS, as Stadler is manufacturing them for Caltrain. This will replace the Nippon Sharyo Highliner IIs used on the Metra Electric District (and the single-level EMUs for South Shore Line; South Shore Line can order a different fleet of single-level EMUs)



I ride the Rock Island frequently from Evergreen Park to downtown Chicago; I would love to see RI go to Union Station ,because when I need to go to Union Station I have to use Southwest Service, which is basically a commuter train and has no Sunday and very little mid day service. Also, there is talk that SW will soon be ending at LaSalle St station, as a result of the flyover to be done around 63rd street?


----------



## PerRock

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> This will replace the Nippon Sharyo Highliner IIs used on the Metra Electric District (and the single-level EMUs for South Shore Line; South Shore Line can order a different fleet of single-level EMUs)



NICTD uses the same NS Highliners as Metra as well.
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net//pictures/32048/11 09-02 10.jpg

If I had to guess, Metra would just order more Highlinders from NS. Most of Metra's entire fleet of cars & EMUs are from NS and are essentially the same, so it makes some sense to keep it that way.

peter

Edit/PS: The 16th St. flyover would also allow for Amtrak's Michigan service to use the South Shore tracks to get into the city & avoid the congested NS tracks in Indiana.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

west point said:


> Observed that it is less than 12 inches from top of Superliners !



And they're 16 ft 2 in so around 17 ft. So they'll have to dig as much as 8 ft to safely allow 25 kV wires. Guess this means digging a tunnel on its approaches (this will also force Amtrak and Metra to end using diesels so they're gonna have to buy battery locos for the non-electric operations)


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Capacity is an issue at Union Station, so the plan is to reroute Southwest Service trains to LaSalle Street. As far as I am aware, no lines will be rerouted to Union Station in the near future, although there are long term plans involving run-through service at Union Station from the Electric District to O'Hare.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

PerRock said:


> NICTD uses the same NS Highliners as Metra as well.
> http://www.rrpicturearchives.net//pictures/32048/11 09-02 10.jpg
> 
> If I had to guess, Metra would just order more Highlinders from NS. Most of Metra's entire fleet of cars & EMUs are from NS and are essentially the same, so it makes some sense to keep it that way.



I know that. Though NS will have to make a 25 kV 60 Hz version of the Highliner II and I don't think sending back existing Highliner IIs to NS to be converted to that voltage would be easy, hence me bringing up Stadler as a supplier for new 25 kV EMUs for Metra



PerRock said:


> Edit/PS: The 16th St. flyover would also allow for Amtrak's Michigan service to use the South Shore tracks to get into the city & avoid the congested NS tracks in Indiana.



And how would it?


----------



## jis

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> And they're 16 ft 2 in so around 17 ft. So they'll have to dig as much as 8 ft to safely allow 25 kV wires. Guess this means digging a tunnel on its approaches (this will also force Amtrak and Metra to end using diesels so they're gonna have to buy battery locos for the non-electric operations)


You require 8 feet additional clearance over 17' clearance for 25kV? That would be news to most users of 25kV electrification, including Amtrak and NJT!


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

jis said:


> You require 8 feet clearance for 25kV? That would be news to most users of 25kV electrification, including Amtrak and NJT!



No they would have to dig 8 feet below Union Station to raise the vertical clearance from roughly 17 feet to 25 feet (the vertical clearance Caltrain electric will have)


----------



## MikefromCrete

Somehow, I don't see Metra rerouting any more trains to Union Station. The south side of the station is at capacity now. 
As far as Nippon Shayron building more Highliners, the company has shut down its Rochelle, Il., plant and apparently has abandoned the North American market as a result of the fiasco with the Midwest/California cars.
BNSF and UP West lines will be the last Metra lines to be electrified since Metra doesn't own the routes and both area extremely heavy with freight traffic.


----------



## jis

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> No they would have to dig 8 feet below Union Station to raise the vertical clearance from roughly 17 feet to 25 feet (the vertical clearance Caltrain electric will have)


Indian Railways runs 24' tall double stack on flat cars under 26' high catenary. 

NJT runs 14'6" tall MLVs under 16' 6" clearance over bridges with 25kV catenary. 

Why on earth would you require catenary at 25'? Just because California chose to do so? 

Safety clearance for 25kV is something like 1.5' so clearance from train roof to contact wire and 1.5' clearance from contact wire to ceiling, i.e. a total of roughly 3' above train roof is sufficient, a little less if ceiling rails embedded in insulating material are used in covered areas instead of full blown catenary like every sane rail agency in the world does. KISS's are 16' - 16.5' tall (depending on which country's version one is talking about). So ceiling clearance of 19.5" should be fine with contact wire at 18' or so. So dig ~2.5' or so, not 8'.

But one should ask more seriously whether it is really necessary to convert everything to 25kV AC in the first place since all this digging really gains nothing much at enormous cost. It might be more cost effective to use dual voltage equipment instead.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

MikefromCrete said:


> As far as Nippon Shayron building more Highliners, the company has shut down its Rochelle, Il., plant and apparently has abandoned the North American market as a result of the fiasco with the Midwest/California cars.



Looks like Metra and NICTD will have to turn to Stadler for new EMUs then.



MikefromCrete said:


> BNSF and UP West lines will be the last Metra lines to be electrified since Metra doesn't own the routes and both area extremely heavy with freight traffic.



The BNSF and Union Pacific lines see higher ridership than the Metra Electric and Rock Island lines (both of which Metra completely owns the tracks to)



jis said:


> Safety clearance for 25kV is something like 1.5' so clearance from train roof to contact wire and 1.5' clearance from contact wire to ceiling, i.e. a total of roughly 3' above train roof is sufficient, a little less if ceiling rails embedded in insulating material are used in covered areas instead of full blown catenary like every sane rail agency in the world does. KISS's are 16' - 16.5' tall (depending on which country's version one is talking about). So ceiling clearance of 19.5" should be fine with contact wire at 18' or so. So dig ~2.5' or so, not 8'.



The can also use overhead rails like Berlin Hauptbahnhof so they'd dig even less for rebuilding Union Station to accomodate 25 kV electrification (as well as reduce maintenance costs).



jis said:


> But one should ask more seriously whether it is really necessary to convert everything to 25kV AC in the first place since all this digging really gains nothing much at enormous cost. It might be more cost effective to use dual voltage equipment instead.



Since there would now be less digging, diesels can be retained. Anyways, putting all electric operations (Metra/IC electric and NICTD and future electric BNSF, UP and RI) under one single voltage (25 kV 60 Hz AC) will make things easier logistically. 25 kV 60 Hz AC is much more used than 1500 V DC and there's far more off-the-shelf components.


----------



## west point

Observed the less than 1 foot when maintenance was trying to repair something on top of the end of the Superliner. It was on one of the thru tracks. maybe is the structure is able remove the floor above the tracks to get the proper clearances. That might be a better solution . It would allow for Amtrak and others to actually purchase taller equipment that can be used throughout the whole west if so desired. Right now CHI US clearances limit bi level height for all western trains.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

west point said:


> Observed the less than 1 foot when maintenance was trying to repair something on top of the end of the Superliner. It was on one of the thru tracks. maybe is the structure is able remove the floor above the tracks to get the proper clearances. That might be a better solution . It would allow for Amtrak and others to actually purchase taller equipment that can be used throughout the whole west if so desired. Right now CHI US clearances limit bi level height for all western trains.



Superliners are pretty tall to begin with (I think they're the tallest bilevel coaches currently in service)


----------



## PerRock

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> I know that. Though NS will have to make a 25 kV 60 Hz version of the Highliner II and I don't think sending back existing Highliner IIs to NS to be converted to that voltage would be easy, hence me bringing up Stadler as a supplier for new 25 kV EMUs for Metra



What's the source on your conversion change claims. My engineering coworkers, don't think you'd need a brand new train; it's would be within reason to convert it. Also NICTD/Metra could also use a 3rd party for the conversion... NS is doing conversions to their diesel locomotives right now for example.



NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> And how would it?



Ah it wouldn't mis-read the map.

peter


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

PerRock said:


> What's the source on your conversion change claims. My engineering coworkers, don't think you'd need a brand new train; it's would be within reason to convert it. Also NICTD/Metra could also use a 3rd party for the conversion... NS is doing conversions to their diesel locomotives right now for example.



I was wondering if it would be possible to fit 25 kV 60 Hz AC electrical equipment within the space used for the 1500 V DC electrical equipment given its design. If so then they wouldn't have to buy the Stadler EMUs that Caltrain will be using. I was bringin up Stadler providing bilevel electric EMUs for Metra and NICTD because the Highliner II's are literally the Gallery Cars (which both Caltrain and Metra use) but as EMUs and Caltrain's gonna replace the gallery cars with those. Plus they're roomier than the Gallery Cars.
Maybe Metra can also convert their diesels to battery electrics for the non-electrified tracks.



PerRock said:


> Ah it wouldn't mis-read the map.



What do you mean mis-read the map?


----------



## Trogdor

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Capacity is an issue at Union Station, so the plan is to reroute Southwest Service trains to LaSalle Street. As far as I am aware, no lines will be rerouted to Union Station in the near future, although there are long term plans involving run-through service at Union Station from the Electric District to O'Hare.



I’d be careful of saying there are long-term plans for run-through service, MED to O’Hare. It’s something championed by the Midwest High Speed Rail Association (or whatever their new name is), but to my knowledge has never been a part of an actual Metra/RTA/railroad/government-sponsored transportation plan.

Would it be nice to have? I think so. Is anyone outside of advocacy circles working on it? Not to my knowledge.


----------



## west point

Superliners are not the tallest equipment in service. Rocky mountain tours has taller and Alaska RR has even taller. Could not access their height.

EDIT Colorado railcar now US Railcar height is 19"9-1/2". That height would allow upper level sleeper space to be as high as V-1 & V-2s upper berth beds.

Superliners are 16' 2" .


----------



## MikefromCrete

Trogdor said:


> I’d be careful of saying there are long-term plans for run-through service, MED to O’Hare. It’s something championed by the Midwest High Speed Rail Association (or whatever their new name is), but to my knowledge has never been a part of an actual Metra/RTA/railroad/government-sponsored transportation plan.
> 
> Would it be nice to have? I think so. Is anyone outside of advocacy circles working on it? Not to my knowledge.



Right, the whole connecting Meta Electric to Milwaukee West to get to O'Hare is a proposal of the High Speed Alliance. Metra has never endorsed this plan, or even commented on, as far as I know. Metra is looking at electrifying the Rock Island District, and might send some Rock Island trains over to Millenium Park station via the St. Charles Air LIne, but there's nothing more to the plan. Metra certainly would not add additional service to Union Station and is looking at diverting the Southwest Service trains to LaSalle St.
Any Rock Island electrification is far in the future and any other routes are even farther in the future. And as I said before, BNSF and UP would put up all kinds of roadblocks to electrifying the Aurora and UP West lines.
As far as what kind of equipment would be used, that's also far in the future and any speculation is just that, speculation.


----------



## CTANut

A train line in Montreal converted from 3000 VDC to 25kv 60hz in the 1990s, and now they are converting yet again to 1500 VDC.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

CTANut said:


> A train line in Montreal converted from 3000 VDC to 25kv 60hz in the 1990s, and now they are converting yet again to 1500 VDC.



And this will cause serious logistical issues, especiall for VIA Rail's neo-Corridor to link Montreal with Quebec City, lest they merge Lucien L'Allier and Central Station into a new single downtown station (or build a new Mount Royal tunnel)


----------



## jis

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> And this will cause serious logistical issues, especiall for VIA Rail's neo-Corridor to link Montreal with Quebec City, lest they merge Lucien L'Allier and Central Station into a new single downtown station (or build a new Mount Royal tunnel)


The article you linked says at length that the problem is differences in loading gauge, platforms etc. One of the comments actually says clearly that the differences in electrification standards would not be a major problem. 

Think about it. Eurostars when they initially started operating out of Waterloo operated on 750DC to Dollands Moor, and there transitioned to 25kV AC. Every Thameslink train in London today runs DC south of the Thames and 25kV AC north of the Thames. Every RER-B train in Paris runs 3kV DC (AFAIR on the voltage, but it is DC) south of Gare du Nord and 25kV AC north of Gare du Nord. It is not rocket science and it is mostly a non-issue.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

jis said:


> The article you linked says at length that the problem is differences in loading gauge, platforms etc. One of the comments actually says clearly that the differences in electrification standards would not be a major problem.
> 
> Think about it. Eurostars when they initially started operating out of Waterloo operated on 750DC to Dollands Moor, and there transitioned to 25kV AC. Every Thameslink train in London today runs DC south of the Thames and 25kV AC north of the Thames. Every RER-B train in Paris runs 3kV DC (AFAIR on the voltage, but it is DC) south of Gare du Nord and 25kV AC north of Gare du Nord. It is not rocket science and it is mostly a non-issue.



REM wants to have the Mount Royal Tunnel all for themselves, meaning no trains from VIA and Exo allowed.

Also the only DC voltage France uses is 1500 V DC.


----------



## jis

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> REM wants to have the Mount Royal Tunnel all for themselves, meaning no trains from VIA and Exo allowed.
> 
> Also the only DC voltage France uses is 1500 V DC.


Either way, the fact that Mount Royal Tunnel is being hijacked by REM has very little to do with whether it is electrified using 1500DC or 25kV AC. If they wanted it to be shared the type of electrification is not something that would prevent such sharing. That was my point. You were trying to use that as an argument about METRA needing to change their electrification of existing line. That really is a very weak argument since it is not really the issue in Mount Royal Tunnel. The issue there is mostly other considerations.

It appears that it is a rail advocacy group that is the only one upset about the plan. Even VIA does not appear toc are much, much to the bewilderment of the author of the article. I have no idea how widespread the authors view is shared by anyone on this matter anyway. If REM provides for a much greater utility of the tunnel, then maybe it does make sense for VIA to use a different routing to get to Quebec. But all that is out of scope of this thread.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

jis said:


> Either way, the fact that Mount Royal Tunnel is being hijacked by REM has very little to do with whether it is electrified using 1500DC or 25kV AC. If they wanted it to be shared the type of electrification is not something that would prevent such sharing. That was my point. You were trying to use that as an argument about METRA needing to change their electrification of existing line. That really is a very weak argument since it is not really the issue in Mount Royal Tunnel. The issue there is mostly other considerations.
> 
> It appears that it is a rail advocacy group that is the only one upset about the plan. Even VIA does not appear toc are much, much to the bewilderment of the author of the article. I have no idea how widespread the authors view is shared by anyone on this matter anyway. If REM provides for a much greater utility of the tunnel, then maybe it does make sense for VIA to use a different routing to get to Quebec. By all that is out of scope of this thread.



Seems I should bring this to the DMs then


----------



## jis

What are DMs?


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

jis said:


> What are DMs?



Direct message, like private messaging
Guess here would be Start A Conversation


----------



## Seaboard92

Please don’t as I’m enjoying reading this. It’s quite fascinating.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> Indian Railways runs 24' tall double stack on flat cars under 26' high catenary.
> 
> NJT runs 14'6" tall MLVs under 16' 6" clearance over bridges with 25kV catenary.
> 
> Why on earth would you require catenary at 25'? Just because California chose to do so?
> 
> Safety clearance for 25kV is something like 1.5' so clearance from train roof to contact wire and 1.5' clearance from contact wire to ceiling, i.e. a total of roughly 3' above train roof is sufficient, a little less if ceiling rails embedded in insulating material are used in covered areas instead of full blown catenary like every sane rail agency in the world does. KISS's are 16' - 16.5' tall (depending on which country's version one is talking about). So ceiling clearance of 19.5" should be fine with contact wire at 18' or so. So dig ~2.5' or so, not 8'.



I think according to physicists, air can insulate up to 3kV per millimetre which means a foor of air can tolerate 300 x 3kV = 900 kV. That means it can hold 25kV 36 times over.

According to engineers, the figure is closer to 1 kV per millimeter, but that's still 300 kV that a foot of air can tolerate. that means it can hold 25kV 12 times over.

Of course in reality you wouldn't want to take it anywhere near the limit as the slightest misalignment or something like a bird flying between train and wire could cause an arc to strike. You need to take into account that the 25kV cable must not just be at a safe distance from the train but also from the ceiling and other structures, and that the catenary needs space to move in dynamically, and that the the train bounces on its springs and other such effects. In locations with clearance problems such as legacy tunnels they also sometimes use rigid overhead conductors rather than catenary cables to save space.


----------



## cirdan

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> I was wondering if it would be possible to fit 25 kV 60 Hz AC electrical equipment within the space used for the 1500 V DC electrical equipment given its design. If so then they wouldn't have to buy the Stadler EMUs that Caltrain will be using. I was bringin up Stadler providing bilevel electric EMUs for Metra and NICTD because the Highliner II's are literally the Gallery Cars (which both Caltrain and Metra use) but as EMUs and Caltrain's gonna replace the gallery cars with those. Plus they're roomier than the Gallery Cars.



Maybe it would be possible, but it might take some customization and hence less use of off the shelf components and hence higher costs. I cannot right now think of any examples of such a conversion having been done from DC to AC. But that doesn't mean to say that somebody hasn't done it somewhere somehow. Advancement in power electronics means the cabinets required are now much smaller than they used to be.


----------



## jis

In going to HV AC the usual problem is finding space for the heavy transformer at a location that does not adversely affect the ride and stability of the car. Usually such space is easy to find in high floor cars. Harder in low floor cars.

In engineering electrification systems, for 25kV catenary usually 10" - 12" clearance is used, more so if you are near the sea and in humid atmosphere.

Inside tunnel the clearance above the contact surface can be reduced considerably if the contact rail is mounted on continuous insulating surface and the tunnel roof is covered with insulating material all the way to prevent sparkover from the pantograph.


----------



## west point

NJ Transit converted the E-L line from DC to 25Kv AC.-


----------



## jis

west point said:


> NJ Transit converted the E-L line from DC to 25Kv AC.-


One of the world's biggest 1500v DC to 25kV 50Hz AC conversion was that of the suburban network around Mumbai. Before that there was a much smaller conversion of 3kV DC to 25kV 50Hz AC in part of the suburban network of Kolkata where the rest of the massive network was then electrified using AC through the '60s and early '70s. Now the railways in state of West Bengal, where Kolkata is located is about to become fully electrified next year.

One difference between Mumbai and Kolkata was that in Kolkata the DC electrification was short lived and it was converted as soon as AC electrification came to its boundary. In Mumbai they electrified everything outside the suburban network using 25kV AC before they tackled the conversion. It involved increasing clearance through many tunnels on the Bhore Ghat and Thal Ghat ramps up from the coastal plains to the Deccan Plateau escarpment. For a long period they used dual voltage equipment to run through trains. But most LD trains changed engines at the traditional end point of DC electrification loco change points - Igatpuri (towards Kolkata) and Pune (towards Chennai). Delhi train to North ran through with dual voltage engines part of the way before changing engine to AC.

In the case of METRA, if clearance is a problem for HV which is not easily or cost effectively fixed, they could use lower voltage electrification at constricted places without giving up the advantages of 25kV in the trunks which presumably do not have vertical clearance problems that aren't easy to fix.

One reason that NY Penn Station may never be upped from 12kV is clearance issues, even if the trunks outside of the clearance issue area is converted to 25kV some day, though converting from the 12kV 25Hz single phase synchronous network to 25kV 60Hz 3 phase commercial feed network is a huge undertaking. MNRR in Connecticut managed to convert from ~12kV 25Hz single phase system to 12.5kV 60Hz 3 phase commercial feed, but it took them years to get there. The conversion of the entire system to constant tension catenary is taking even longer, and sin;t quite done yet.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

jis said:


> One reason that NY Penn Station may never be upped from 12kV is clearance issues, even if the trunks outside of the clearance issue area is converted to 25kV some day, though converting from the 12kV 25Hz single phase synchronous network to 25kV 60Hz 3 phase commercial feed network is a huge undertaking.



What's the vertical clearance of the North and East River Tunnels when compared to the Mount Royal Tunnel (a tunnel with very similar height restrictions)? If they're similar enough to Mount Royal Tunnel then converting NY Penn Station to 25 kV 60 Hz could be doable (it would also enable Metro-North to operate their M8s into Penn Station as they cannot run on 12 kV 25 Hz AC (but can run on 25 kV 60 Hz AC).



jis said:


> MNRR in Connecticut managed to convert from ~12kV 25Hz single phase system to 12.5kV 60Hz 3 phase commercial feed, but it took them years to get there. The conversion of the entire system to constant tension catenary is taking even longer, and sin;t quite done yet.



Seems it'd be possible for them to convert it to 25 kV 60 Hz AC in the future. That's how NJT converted the Matawan-Long Branch segment from 12 kV 60 Hz to 25 kV 60 Hz.


----------



## jis

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> What's the vertical clearance of the North and East River Tunnels when compared to the Mount Royal Tunnel (a tunnel with very similar height restrictions)? If they're similar enough to Mount Royal Tunnel then converting NY Penn Station to 25 kV 60 Hz could be doable (it would also enable Metro-North to operate their M8s into Penn Station as they cannot run on 12 kV 25 Hz AC (but can run on 25 kV 60 Hz AC).


Someone who once upon a time worked as chief engineer of projects around Penn Station told me that that there would be significant cost to create additional clearances in Penn station, so while given additional money it is doable, there are much more urgent uses for any additional money to do more pressing things. conversion of electrification system is a very very low priority since nothing is broken. So it is unlikely to happen anytime soon. This gentleman then went on to work on NEC track upgrade projects, then onto ARC and Gateway, and finally left Amtrak to move on to Parsons, still remaining involved with Gateway.

Anyway, the bottom line is that there is enormous costs involved to replace the 25Hz system by a 60Hz system with very little gain. So Amtrak has been enhancing the 25Hz system with additional static converter feeds from commercial sources. It is not going away anytime soon.

It is much easier and cheaper for Metro North to acquire 25Hz capable EMUs than to convert electrification in Penn Station. Actually what they plan to do is extend LIRR third rail upto CP Gate where the 60Hz electrification ends and 25Hz electrification begins, and run M8s into Penn Station using 3rd rail DC, which of course is the least cost alternative at present. They would need to do so anyway to use the West Side Yard, since LIRR will never string wires over it.


> Seems it'd be possible for them to convert it to 25 kV 60 Hz AC in the future. That's how NJT converted the Matawan - Long Branch segment from 12 kV 60 Hz to 25 kV 60 Hz.


Matawan - Long Branch bears no similarity to Penn Station. Matawan - Long Branch was electrified for 25kV 60Hz. Initially it was energized at 12.5kV 60Hz by center tapping the secondary side of the transformer to allow Arrows to operate through since they cannot change voltage on the fly. Once they got enough ALP44s, ALP46s and trailer coaches to discontinue use of Arrows beyond Matawan they reverted to use the full secondary coil on the transformers to get to 25kV as originally designed, since the ALPs can change voltage on the fly.

Why on earth would MNRR want to convert to 25kV? Except for a small subfleet, specially being built for operation east of New Haven on service to New London, their M8s are incapable of operating on 25kV.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

jis said:


> Matawan - Long Branch bears no similarity to Penn Station.



I was comparing Matawan-Long Branch to Metro-North's New Haven Line.



jis said:


> Why on earth would MNRR want to convert to 25kV? Except for a small subfleet, specially being built for operation east of New Haven on service to New London, their M8s are incapable of operating on 25kV.



Aren't the M8s multi-system and can change between 12 kV 60 Hz and 25 kV 60 Hz on the fly? That's what I heard


----------



## jis

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> I was comparing Matawan-Long Branch to Metro-North's New Haven Line.


The MNRR electrification is not designed for 25kV, so it will most likely need additional, possibly quite expensive, civil clearance work for the higher voltage. The Long Branch electrification was designed for 25kV when it was built.


> Aren't the M8s multi-system and can change between 12 kV 60 Hz and 25 kV 60 Hz on the fly? That's what I heard


Only the east of New Haven subfleet, not the majority of the fleet. A money saving exercise by MNRR, as they wanted as many cars as they could get. So they took the absolute lowest cost package.


----------



## neroden

Well, that's silly. However, I'm sure that the non-multisystem-M8s can be retrofitted; if they're on the same base structure as the multisystem M8s, there is physical room to implement the necessary hardware. It's not like trying to add pantographs and AC pickup to the M7 or M9, which is probably impossible.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Anyway, the bottom line is that there is enormous costs involved to replace the 25Hz system by a 60Hz system with very little gain. So Amtrak has been enhancing the 25Hz system with additional static converter feeds from commercial sources. It is not going away anytime soon.



It used to add a lot of cost to EMU purchases, because handling multiple frequencies was a HUGE PAIN. Did something change technologically? Perhaps with electronic rectifiers, you can design one which can handle any incoming frequency?

Back when it added huge costs to EMU purchases, there was a huge gain in replacing the 25Hz system with a 60Hz system. What changed?

Multi-voltage has been relatively easy for a long time (after all, voltages droop and spike anyway; you have to be able to handle variable voltage), but multi-frequency was hard. That's part of why Metro-North thought that standardizing the frequency to avoid frequency-switching was worth it, but standardizing the voltage wasn't (since higher voltage requires higher structure clearances, but changing frequency requires absolutely no structure changes).



> It is much easier and cheaper for Metro North to acquire 25Hz capable EMUs than to convert electrification in Penn Station.


Is it? Why? What changed technologically?



> Actually what they plan to do is extend LIRR third rail upto CP Gate where the 60Hz electrification ends and 25Hz electrification begins, and run M8s into Penn Station using 3rd rail DC, which of course is the least cost alternative at present. They would need to do so anyway to use the West Side Yard, since LIRR will never string wires over it.



I was told that the newest of the M9s are supposed to have shoes which can do DC pickup from both LIRR overrunning third rail and Metro-North underrunning third rail without any manual "get out and have repairmen alter the train" changes. This, if true, would make this straightforward, of course.

But this is new. Even the first batch of M9s, the newest cars in service, can't do that. It would have certainly been a pain in the neck with the older cars. I am curious as to how the new "automatic flip shoes" work.


----------



## jis

Yes, the big change is in the architecture of the drive system driven by the availability of solid state power electronics technology.

Today whatever is fed to the engine is converted to something around 3kV DC for the link bus. Then the users of the power, namely the motor drives and hotel power are all fed from the link bus through appropriate solid state modules that create the right kind of AC with the right waveform and frequency. Almost no new passenger equipment is built with DC motors any more.

One thing that this architecture does is that it completely isolates the control circuitry from the nature of the high voltage feed. The only components affected are the primary HV transformer and the rectifier to feed the link bus, and also incidentally the feed from regeneration to the HV side, which again is usually through the link bus.

So the issue of line frequency then remains relevant only to the capability of the transformer and rectifier. Rectifiers generally are relatively insensitive to frequencies. Transformers have to have adequate sized cores to carry the power needed. Lower frequencies require larger cores, but a transformer capable of handling the necessary power at lower frequency will work fine with higher frequency. 

Before the current architecture became feasible, the control system used tap changers on the secondary side of the transformer and fiddled around with power in AC form before feeding it through a rectifier to DC motors. So they were more exposed to line frequency, but still equipment like Arrow IIIs were built to handle both 25Hz and 60Hz a long time back, even though they had DC motors in their original incarnation.

Now the flip side is that any extra capability costs extra money, so one does not willy nilly add extra capability when you have no plan to use it. But merely adding the ability to handle 25Hz and 60Hz in effect just makes the transformer a little heavier, and costs slightly more. OTOH converting the existing 25Hz electrification to 60Hz is an enormously complex, quite expensive and time consuming process. Some day, when everything around New York becomes electrified at 12.5kV or 25kV 60Hz, it may be time to consider taking the leap, like they did in Mumbai with their 1.5kV DC system. But for now that effort is probably better expended in more pressingly needed projects.


----------



## west point

Conversion to 60Hz being Complex is definitely the word. The 25 Hz has powered the signal system, many station services, repair facilities/ Many motors for these facilities are 25 Hz which will require replacing. You don't want your escalator running over twice as fast! But signal system conversion is most difficult. Designing the signal system + ACSES to operate both at 25 Hz and swapping to 60 Hz immediately can be very difficult +. Amtrak has been installing commercial 60 Hz back up supplies for each of the signal systems locations but do not know how far along that has proceeded ?

Of course conversion has already started with the Hell Gate conversion that took over a year ? Just about 12 miles. So converting 249 miles would take 20 years? That does not include the various yards.

As to where Amtrak would start maybe WASH then north. But probably last section would be the area around PHL due to problems with coordination with SEPTA ?


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

So back to Metra....

(though this is an interesting discussion)

At the moment I don't see any reason to change the electrification or rolling stock or infrastructure. I could see it once another line was electrified (or plans being made to do so). Then a big bulk older for new rolling stock or converting the new Highliners which are not old by Metra standards. One thing that was discussed, I think for the Rock, was battery powered trains of some kind if I remember right. 

That said, I think Metra wants to replace their older (oldest in nation in regular use iirc) cars first, get the system back into good order before tackling a big infrastructure project on an entire line, they want to increase service to LaSalle St first and stuff like that (and I hear through the grapevine that they are hiring again, although not sure for what positions).


----------



## jis

west point said:


> Conversion to 60Hz being Complex is definitely the word. The 25 Hz has powered the signal system, many station services, repair facilities/ Many motors for these facilities are 25 Hz which will require replacing. You don't want your escalator running over twice as fast! But signal system conversion is most difficult. Designing the signal system + ACSES to operate both at 25 Hz and swapping to 60 Hz immediately can be very difficult +. Amtrak has been installing commercial 60 Hz back up supplies for each of the signal systems locations but do not know how far along that has proceeded ?


There are only small residues of the signaling system that depend on the existence of 25Hz power supply. There is no station hotel power that uses 25Hz anymore, so those are mostly non issues. The only major issue is converting from a single phase synchronized power supply to 3 phase commercial power supply.

If just using 60Hz was the goal, then I guess the quickest way to get there would be replace the 25Hz converters by 60Hz single phase converters. But that seems to be somewhat pointless spending of money and effort. Doing a more complete job involves changing the entire feed transmission lines architecture and deployment, is a big challenge and extremely disruptive.


> Of course conversion has already started with the Hell Gate conversion that took over a year ? Just about 12 miles. So converting 249 miles would take 20 years? That does not include the various yards.


It is quite a stretch to claim that since all that was done was to use MNRR substation feed to power the Hell Gate Line upto CP Gate. That helps off load the 25Hz system of that load and helps Penn Station with a little more power.

There is no plan to go any further with that at present. Amtrak just installed a whole bunch of new static converters too bolster the 25Hz system feed at Metuchen and Hamilton. So the trunk line in NJ or the Penn Station complex is not getting converted in the next many decades. And before that they just finished bringing on line a huge static converter station in PA (Richmond? @PRR60 correct me if I am wrong) which promptly made it into the news during the great catenary power failure a few years back due to some weird pilot error by the power director.


----------



## PRR 60

jis said:


> There is no plan to go any further with that at present. Amtrak just installed a whole bunch of new static converters too bolster the 25Hz system feed at Metuchen and Hamilton. So the trunk line in NJ or the Penn Station complex is not getting converted in the next many decades. And before that they just finished bringing on line a huge static converter station in PA (Richmond? @PRR60 correct me if I am wrong) which promptly made it into the news during the great catenary power failure a few years back due to some weird pilot error by the power director.



The Metuchen converter capacity was increased from 25 to 80 MW and a new traction substation was added at Hamilton. Hamilton has no converters.

The Richmond converter station (located in Philadelphia near the Delair Bridge) has 180 MW capacity and was indeed the epicenter of the May 25. 2006 Amtrak 25 Hz blackout. The root cause was the failure of a programmable logic controller (PLC) at Richmond. PLC's are the interfaces between the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system and the local facility controls that permits remote operation of the converter from the Amtrak power dispatch center.

On May 23, work was performed at Richmond that required imposing a temporary output limit of 90 MVA. That limit was applied by the dispatcher through SCADA on May 23. The work was completed the evening of May 23 and the dispatcher removed the limit, but one of the two PLC's at Richmond failed and, unknown to the dispatcher, the 90 MVA (72 MW) limit remained in place. The power system was configured assuming 180 MW capacity from Richmond. The system survived the supply shortfall through the morning and afternoon peaks on May 24, although some unusual voltage fluctuations and a Sunnyside converter tripping on overload were hints that something was amiss. Given that electric traction systems by nature have varying voltage and loads, the hints were missed on May 24. The May 25 morning peak exceeded actual system supply capacity, voltage fluctuated wildly, one-by-one the converters overloaded and tripped, finally the dispatchers manually tripped the Safe Harbor generators to prevent destruction, and that was that.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia

Metra Electric Rider said:


> One thing that was discussed, I think for the Rock, was battery powered trains of some kind if I remember right.



Metra did talk about battery trains but they concluded that they're currently not practical for their services as the demands would require a large amount of battery storage.


----------



## neroden

jis said:


> Yes, the big change is in the architecture of the drive system driven by the availability of solid state power electronics technology.
> 
> Today whatever is fed to the engine is converted to something around 3kV DC for the link bus. Then the users of the power, namely the motor drives and hotel power are all fed from the link bus through appropriate solid state modules that create the right kind of AC with the right waveform and frequency. Almost no new passenger equipment is built with DC motors any more.
> 
> One thing that this architecture does is that it completely isolates the control circuitry from the nature of the high voltage feed. The only components affected are the primary HV transformer and the rectifier to feed the link bus, and also incidentally the feed from regeneration to the HV side, which again is usually through the link bus.
> 
> So the issue of line frequency then remains relevant only to the capability of the transformer and rectifier. Rectifiers generally are relatively insensitive to frequencies. Transformers have to have adequate sized cores to carry the power needed. Lower frequencies require larger cores, but a transformer capable of handling the necessary power at lower frequency will work fine with higher frequency.
> 
> Before the current architecture became feasible, the control system used tap changers on the secondary side of the transformer and fiddled around with power in AC form before feeding it through a rectifier to DC motors. So they were more exposed to line frequency, but still equipment like Arrow IIIs were built to handle both 25Hz and 60Hz a long time back, even though they had DC motors in their original incarnation.
> 
> Now the flip side is that any extra capability costs extra money, so one does not willy nilly add extra capability when you have no plan to use it. But merely adding the ability to handle 25Hz and 60Hz in effect just makes the transformer a little heavier, and costs slightly more. OTOH converting the existing 25Hz electrification to 60Hz is an enormously complex, quite expensive and time consuming process. Some day, when everything around New York becomes electrified at 12.5kV or 25kV 60Hz, it may be time to consider taking the leap, like they did in Mumbai with their 1.5kV DC system. But for now that effort is probably better expended in more pressingly needed projects.


Back in the day, it was not as easy to make the rectifiers and transformers handle multiple frequencies. The old rectifiers weren't happy with major frequency changes. I appreciate the explanation of the architecture which makes it trivial; it makes sense. I suppose for regen you need an alternator? Those are electronic and solid state now too, and don't care about frequencies... But weren't in the past. Makes sense. Tech moves on!

I am still curious about the shoes which can handle MN and LIRR third rails without difficulty.


----------



## west point

It seems amazing that the 25 Kv 50 or 60 Hz standard still has not made thru the western world. In fact some new DC CAT is still being built for intercity rail in eastern Europe. Granted DC is cheaper initially as Impedance bonds are not needed for DC CAT signaling. However the EU is pushing AC by giving higher grants for AC 25 Kv.


----------

