Você está na página 1de 9

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224585425

Braking energy recuperation


Article in IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine October 2009
DOI: 10.1109/MVT.2009.933480 Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS

READS

10

1 author:
Vitaly Gelman
vg controls
9 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Vitaly Gelman


Retrieved on: 01 September 2016

ilicon diode rectifier (SDR)


used in a majority of U.S. traction systems is a 40-year-old
technology; it provides no
active voltage control and does
not allow for power recuperation
into the ac line. New technologies such as thyristor-controlled
rectifiers (TCRs) provide active
voltage control, and reversible
TCRs (RTCRs) allow for power
recuperation into the ac line.
The first U.S. traction TCR
was put into revenue service in
Dallas in 1996. The Dallas system
was expanded in 2001, and Phoenix recently started its TCR revenue service as well. In the early
1990s, much attention was drawn
to the TCR, but then, the interest
faded away, returning now when the
energy savings became a priority.

TCR and SDR Basics


SDRs output characteristics are determined by rectifier transformer parameters and, to a lesser extent, by system
impedance. Transportation agencies have
accumulated enough experience with SDR so
that they can specify the transformer and, thus,
assure the desired voltage regulation curve, fault
current, etc. The SDR does not require a controller.
The TCR consists of two parts: power circuit and controller with regulator. RTCR is a TCR with an additional power
module to conduct the current in the reverse direction. It is the job
of the regulators to send a firing pulse (also called gating signal) to each
silicon-controlled rectifier (SCR) to achieve a desirable voltage control, resulting
in voltage regulation, current limiting, and proper inverter operation.

PHOTO BY SIEMENS

BRAKING ENERGY
RECUPERATION
Reversible Thyristor-Controlled Rectifiers
Vitaly Gelman

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MVT.2009.933480

82 |||

1556-6072/09/$26.002009IEEE

IEEE VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE | SEPTEMBER 2009

Proper design of the regulator requires the use of feedback, typically multiloop arrangements (regulation of the
two parameters is needed: voltage and current). Moreover, the operation of the TCR is nonlinear: there is a voltage regulation operating region, a voltage-starving region
(the firing angle is minimal, the operation is similar to
SDR), and a current regulation region. Such design necessitates the application of control theory.
It had been field proven in Dallas Area Rapid Transit
(DART) that TCRs with proper regulator work reliably and
without oscillations; they provide voltage/current within
power circuit limitations. While specifying the TCRs, the
transportation agencies need to characterize both static
and dynamic regulator performance along with power
circuit parameters. It is important to request and check
U.S. field references; other locations often have different
requirements and standards.

TCR Voltage Gain over SDR


Electric trains are specified to have 20% overvoltage margin, i.e., trains with 750-V dc-rated voltage are specified to
operate reliably at 900 V. If the voltage exceeds 900 V, the
train converters shut down. These are the parameters of
the M7 trains used by Long Island Rail Road, Metro North,
and others.
With SDR system, an operating voltage around 700
750 V is selected. With a rated voltage of 700 V and 6% regulation, there is a no-load voltage of 745-V dc (12-pulse rectifier will have no-load voltage higher by additional 3%). The
incoming ac-line voltage increase of 10% gives a no-load
voltage of 820-V dc. This leaves just enough margins to
provide the system receptivity for regenerative braking
(the current needs to travel to the accelerating train).
With TCR, a constant voltage region from 0 to 150% and
a load of 825 V are selected; the TCR will adjust the firing
angle to compensate for any ac-voltage variation.
Figure 1 shows the regulation curves for both TCR and
SDR. We can see that TCR provides a 125-V dc voltage gain
at 100% load and a 150-V dc voltage gain at 150% load. If a
minimum voltage at the train of 500-V dc at 100% load as
design criteria is assumed, then for SDR, a voltage margin
to spend on the rails (both running and power rails) voltage drop is 700500 200-V dc. For the TCR, under the
same condition, the margin of 825500 325-V dc or 60%
gain and even higher if the voltages at 150% load are compared. This voltage gain directly translates into a potential increase of substation spacing (and lower number of
substations). In the existing SDR system, the load is
increased by 60% by converting to TCR/RTCR without
adding new substations.
Smaller increase in the distances or load (say 30%) can
be selected to optimize other parameters: running rail
voltage, losses in the rails, etc. In a Phoenix project, the
number of substations was reduced 28%, from 18 (SDR) to
14 (TCR), right along with the estimates above.

SEPTEMBER 2009 | IEEE VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE

THE FIRST U.S. TRACTION TCR


WAS PUT INTO REVENUE SERVICE
IN DALLAS IN 1996.

Some systems (e.g., DART and Phoenix) opted for even


higher voltage of 845850-V dc. Though this optimizes substation spacing and rail losses, it does not leave enough
room to provide regenerative current rails voltage drop
(see Figure 7, train voltage).
Though the TCRs are more expensive than SDRs, they
comprise only a small portion, about 510% of the installed cost of the substation. The reduced number of substations translates into substantial capital cost savings
(see Table 4).

Train Run Simulation


Simulation Assumption
To simulate energy flow, the following assumptions
are used:
n the substations are located at 1-mi intervals
n the passenger stations are located at the substations
n the distance between the passenger stations is 2 mi
n the train operates in power mode; the power level P
is determined by the acceleration profile and friction
losses; the power (or acceleration) is set by the train
controller, and the current is determined by the available voltage I P=V , where I is the current, P is the
power, and V is the voltage
n the train is 10-car M7, and each car is 145,000 lb
n the acceleration is 2 mi/h/s to 20 mi/h, then inversely
proportional to the speed up to 60 mi/h

850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
Diode Rect
450

TCR

400
0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

FIGURE 1 TCR and SDR voltage regulation curves.

||| 83

RTCR IS A TCR WITH AN ADDITIONAL POWER


MODULE TO CONDUCT THE CURRENT IN THE
REVERSE DIRECTION.

Train Voltage
Rrect RLL x /L Vtrain RLL (Lx)/L Rrect
l1

Rectifier 2

n
n
n
n

the deceleration is inversely proportional to speed


above 20 mi/h; at 60 mi/h, it is 0.667 mi/h/s, increases
to 2 mi/h/s at 20 mi/h, and stays 2 mi/h/s between 20
mi/h and zero speed
the train accelerates to 60 mi/h, travels at 60 mi/h,
and then decelerates to stop at the second substation
2 mi away
the rail impedance is 56 mX/mi (10 mX/1,000 ft)
both SDR and TCR are 6 MW units
the TCR rectifier voltage is 825-V dc at all loads
the SDR has 700 V rated load voltage and 6% regulation (745 V no load voltage, Rrect 5:25 mX)
to account for the losses in the car power train and
the rectifier transformer, 1) the efficiency gtrain of the
car power train is constant 80%, both for acceleration
and braking and 2) the efficiency grect of the rectifier-

Rrect

"
FDAV (v) (0:0025 (N  1)0:00034)140v2

where M is the total train mass in kilograms, N is the number of cars (10), each car has four axles, and v is the train
speed in miles per hour.
The friction force converted to metric units is


1:6
0:454
Ffrict (v) FDAV v(mi=h)
,
3
3:6
0:102

FIGURE 2 System circuit.

The losses in the rails are calculated based on the train


position and current.
The friction force (in pounds) is calculated using
Davis formula:

V2

Rectifier 1

Calculations

#
M
M
29 3 4 3 N 1:3 3
, (1)
v 3 0:03
1,000
1,000

l2

Train
Current

V1

transformer unit is 98.5% are assumed. We neglect


the effects of other trains on the energy flow.

RLL (Lx)/L

where Ffrict (v) is a friction force in N and v is the speed


in mi/h.
Assume the train to be x meters from the left substation (rectifier 1), L  x meters from the right substation
(rectifier 2), the distance L between the substations is 1 mi
(1,600 m), and the rails impedance between the substations RLL 0:0056 X (see [1]). The currents from rectifiers
1 and 2 are I1 and I2 , respectively.
Figure 2 shows the equivalent circuit of our system.
The rectifiers are presented here as a series connection of
voltage source and equivalent resistance Rrect . For the
SDR, V1 V2 745 V and Rrect 5:25 mX; for the TCR,
assume V1 V2 825-V dc and Rrect 0.
Since V1 V2 , the potentials of their top terminals is
the same and can be replaced by a single voltage source
V1 ; the equivalent circuit is shown in Figure 3.
The equations to calculate the required variables are
as follows:
Ptrain

l2
Rrect

Train Voltage

RLL x /L

Vtrain

Train
Current
V1

FIGURE 3 Converted equivalent circuit.

84 |||

Pmech
1

(Ma Ffrict (v))v,


gtrain
gtrain

Ptrain Pmech IVtrain I (V  I 3 Req ),


1
1
1

,
Req Rrect xL RLL Rrect Lx
L RLL
a

l1

(2)

dv
;
dt

dx
,
dt

(3)

where M is the total train mass, v is the train speed, a is


the train acceleration, L is the distance between substations, and x is the distance from the train to substation.
To find out the losses in the rails, currents from each
substation I1 and I2 and, finally, the losses in the left and

IEEE VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE | SEPTEMBER 2009

right segments of the rail are calculated:

NET ENERGY IS THE SUM OF ACCELERATION





x
Lx
I1 Rrect RLL I2 Rrect
RLL ,
L
L

PLUS CONSTANT SPEED ENERGIES MINUS


RECOVERED ENERGY.

I1 I2 I ,
x
Lx
RLL I22 :
Loss RLL I12
L
L

(4)

Train Acceleration

The last step is to calculate the energies: mechanical


energy of the train, energy spent on friction and drag,
energy lost in the rails resistance, and total energy consumed from the ac source.
Emech
Efrict
Erail
Etot

Mav

Mv2
,
2

Ffrict (v)v,
Z

Loss,
Z
1
I1 (V  Rrect I1 ) I2 (V  Rrect I2 ),

grect

(5)

where Emech is the mechanical energy of the train, Efrict the


energy spent on friction and drag, Erail the energy lost in
the rails and overhead catenary system (OCS) resistance,
and Etot is the total energy consumed from an ac source.
For train braking, the equations are very similar,
except that the current and friction losses have opposite
polarity, and where when multiplied by efficiency we need
to divide, and vice versa, to account for the opposite
energy flow
Ptrain gtrain Pmech gtrain (Ma  Ffrict (v))v,
Ptrain Pmech IVtrain I (V IReq ),

Figure 4 shows the results of train acceleration simulation:


traveled distance, speed, acceleration, and train power
during train acceleration from passenger substation to 60
mi/h for both SDR and TCR/RTCR. The acceleration (mi/h/
s) and distance (km) use the right Y scale.
The speed and train power use left scale, and the X
scale is the time in seconds. Assume here that the train
controller sets the acceleration and through it indirectly
sets the speed, position, and train power so that they will
be the same for both SDR and TCR. However, the train current, rail losses, and total energy will be different because
TCR has a higher voltage.
Initially, at constant acceleration, the train current and
power increase linearly with time as expected, the force is
constant, and the power is proportional to speed. Above
20 mi/h, the acceleration is inversely proportional to
speed, corresponding to constant power. Actually, power
increases slightly because the friction force increases
with speed.
Figure 5 shows the results of simulation: train current
and rail losses during train acceleration from passenger
substation to 60 mi/h for both SDR and TCR. The current
follows the power, with the TCR current being substantially lower than SDR because of the higher TCR voltage.
Two traces on the bottom show rail losses for TCR and
SDR. Since in both cases the train moves identically,

1
1
1

,
Req Rrect xL RLL Rrect Lx
L RLL
a

dv
;
dt

dx
,
dt

Vtrain V IReq :

22
20

(6)

An equation for the train voltage Vtrain is added and


needs confirmation that it will not exceed 900 V. The
energy equations are the same, except the one for the total
energy returned:
Z
Etot grect I1 (V Rrect I1 ) I2 (V Rrect I2 ):
(7)
Regeneration into the ac line is possible only with
RTCR. The simulation was performed using the MathCad12 program. The speed and position were obtained by
integrating the acceleration. Power, voltage, and current
were obtained from (3) and (4), and for the regeneration,
from (6) and (4). Finally, the integrals (5) and (7) were calculated to get energy balance and savings.

SEPTEMBER 2009 | IEEE VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE

Acceleration (mi/h/s)

18
16

1.5

14
12
10

Train Power (MW)

Speed (mi/h/10)

4
2

0.5

Distance (km)

0
0
0

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
60
t

FIGURE 4 Train acceleration simulation with SDR and TCR/RTCR.

||| 85

[see (4)]. Once the train moves further away, the rail
losses rise rapidly; they reach a maximum in the middle
point between the substations and decline to zero once
the train approaches the next substation. A set speed of
60 mi/h at 800 m (half a mile) is reached from the original
substation or at the middle point.
Once the train gets closer to the middle point, the SDR
current rises disproportionably because of the higher voltage drop in the railshigher current is needed to provide
the power. At the middle point, the SDR train voltage is
about 500-V dc, and for the TCR and RTCR, the train voltage is about 624 V. The TCR/RTCR provides higher train
voltage leading to lower train current and lower rail losses.

22
20
18
16

Train Current SDR (kA)

14
12
10
8

Train Current TCR (kA)

6
4

Rail Losses SDR (MW)


Rail Losses
TCR (MW)

TCR and SDR Energy Balance for


Train Acceleration

0
0

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

FIGURE 5 Train acceleration with SDR and TCR/RTCR.

equivalent rail impedance is the same for both cases, and


the rail losses are proportional to the square of currents.
While the train is close to the substation (first 10 s), the
rail losses are very small despite the high current. It happens because the distance x and rail impedance are small

TABLE 1 Energy balance (MJ) for acceleration to 60 mi/h.


Rectifier
Type
SDR
TCR

Mechanical
Energy

Friction
Losses

Power
Train
Losses

234

16.9

62.7

Energy balance for acceleration for the same train using


an SDR and a TCR/RTCR is shown in Table 1. All values are
in megajoules (MJ). Mechanical energy, friction losses,
and car power train losses are the same for both cases,
because the train moves identically in both cases. However, the rail losses are much lower for the TCR because of
the lower current. Since the transformer/rectifier efficiency is assumed to be the same for SDR and TCR, those
losses are lower for the TCR also. Total energy is lower by
about 6% (355 versus 378) for the TCR.
This is similar to reducing losses in a
transmission line by increasing the
voltage and thus lowering the current.

Rail
Losses

Rectifier/
Transformer
Losses

Total
Energy

59.1
35.7

5.7
5.3

378.4
354.6

Train Deceleration
Figure 6 shows the results of train
deceleration simulation: traveled distance, speed, acceleration, and train

22
22
Accel (mi/h/s)

20

20
2

18

16

16

1.5

14

10

10

(Train Voltage 800 V)/10

8
Speed (mi/h/10)

6
0.5

Train Power (MW)


2
Distance (km)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
t

FIGURE 6 Train deceleration.

86 |||

14
12

12

18

Current (kA)

Rail Losses (MW)

0
0

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
t

FIGURE 7 Train deceleration with RTCR.

IEEE VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE | SEPTEMBER 2009

power during train deceleration from


TABLE 2 Energy balance (MJ) for deceleration from 60 mi/h to 0.
60 mi/h to a stop at a passenger station.
Assume that the train controller
Car Power
Rectifier/
Total
sets the deceleration and through it
Rectifier Mechanical Friction
Rail
Train
transformer Recovered
Type
Energy
Losses
Losses
Losses
Losses
Energy
indirectly sets the speed, position,
and train power so that they will be
RTCR
234
16.9
43.4
6.8
2.5
165.3
the same for both SDR and TCR/RTCR.
SDR
234
0
0
0
Figure 7 shows the simulation results for the train decelerating from
60 mi/h to zero to stop at the passenger station with substation. Since SDR
TABLE 3 Net energy comparison for SDR and TCR (MJ).
and TCR cannot absorb energy, there
Constant
are only results for RTCR.
Rectifier
Acceleration
Recovered
Net
Speed
The power and current are about
Type
Energy
Energy
Energy
Savings
Energy
half of the values for acceleration
RTCR
354.7
54.2
165.3
243.6
44%
because of the losses in the cars
SDR
378.4
54.2
0
432.6
0
power train and also friction losses. At
an efficiency of 0.8, passing the energy
in both directions leaves only 0:82
lower current), and constant speed energy is the same in
0:64 of the initial energy; the rail losses and friction take
both cases. SDR does not recover any energy. It can be
their toll also. So about 50% seems to be right. The train
seen from the table that RTCR offers 243.6 versus 432.6 MJ
power increases while its speed goes down because of
or 44% propulsion energy savings.
lower friction force at lower speed. The current increases
Figures 8 and 9 show pie charts representing SDR and
faster than the power because of the additional effect of
TCR/RTCR energy balances, respectively (see Tables 13).
rail losses reduction.
Total energy consumption for the same train run is
lower for the TCR compared with that of SDR by about 6%
RTCR and SDR Energy Balance
(408 versus 432 MJ). This is mostly because of the reduced
for Train Deceleration
rail loss.
Table 2 shows the energy balance for the deceleration.
RTCR recovers mechanical energy of the train. The
The train mechanical energy is the same as in Table 1
small circle on Figure 9 shows the energy balance for recu(it depends only on mass and speed). The energy
perating mechanical energy into the ac line by RTCR durrecovered into the ac line is the difference between the
ing train deceleration (see Table 2).
mechanical energy and the sum of all losses: friction,
power train losses, rail losses, and rectifier transformer losses.
Capital Cost and Energy Savings with RTCR
With RTCR, 165 of 234 MJ can be recovered, which is
To estimate RTCR cost savings, the data from Table 3 are
about 70% of the mechanical energy. With SDR, some of
used. Consider a short line with six SDR substations.
this energy can be absorbed by nearby trains, and the rest
is wasted as heat. Since, in our simplified analysis, we do
not consider the effects of other trains, we have zero for
recovered energy in Table 3 for SDR.
Rect/Xfmr
Const
Loss 1%

Speed
13%

RTCR and SDR Total Energy Balance


The train travels 800 m (half a mile) during both acceleration and deceleration. Because the distance between the
passenger stations, in this case, is 2 mi, the train needs to
travel 1 mi at 60 mi/h; it will take 60 s. The constant speed
power is 890 kW (friction losses from Davis formula,
power train losses, and rectifier transformer losses), this
gives a constant speed energy of 54.2 MJ.
Table 3 shows energy balance for a train moving
between the two passenger stations 2 mi apart. Net energy
is the sum of acceleration plus constant speed energies
minus recovered energy. RTCR has a little lower acceleration energy because of lower rails losses (higher voltage,

SEPTEMBER 2009 | IEEE VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE

Rail Loss
14%

Mech
Energy 54%

Pwr
Train Loss
14%

Friction 4%

FIGURE 8 SDR energy balance.

||| 87

account for longer spacing between


the TCR substations. These estiRect/Xfmr
Const
mates do not account for energy
Loss 1%
Rect/Xfmr
Speed
absorption by nearby trains.
Loss D 1%
13%
The results are compiled in
Rail Loss
Rail
Table
4. The table shows that, as an
Recovered
9%
Loss D 2%
ac 40%
alternative to SDR, TCR and RTCR
Mech
Pwr
Pwr
Train Loss
Energy 57%
provide both lower capital cost and
Train Loss
11%
15%
energy savings. The RTCR is a little
higher in capital cost (US$0.4 milFriction 4%
lion), but the payback time is just
five months.
Friction 4%
RTCR versus SDR savings: initial
(capital) cost is 10% lower with
FIGURE 9 TCR/RTCR energy balance.
substantial energy savings.
Figure 10 shows the total cost
and saving over the 30-year period. After 12 years of
Assuming a moderate distance gain of 20%, substitute
running, the savings will exceed the initial cost of
them with five TCR or RTCR substations. Assuming at
RTCR substations.
3-MW power level, the costs of SDR, RTCR with recuperation to the ac line, TCR without recuperation, and the
installed cost of SDR substation are US$150,000,
Savings for the RTCR Upgrade
US$350,000, US$270,000, and US$3 million, respectively.
Consider an upgrade of the existing SDR system to the
Further assume that an average load of the SDR substation
RTCR. For example, the same system with six SDR substaat 25% of rated capacity is 0.75 MW for 24 h, and the cost
tions is used with rated power 3 MW each and consider
of energy is US$100/MW h. Energy savings is about 3% for
the effect of upgrading it to RTCRs. The number of substaregular TCR and 30% for RTCR with recuperation; here,
tions is assumed to be the same. To simplify the analysis,
the energy savings was reduced from 6% to 3% for regular
assume that both rectifier and rectifier transformer needs
TCR and from 44% to 30% for regeneration RTCR to
to be replaced, and the old units to be discarded with no
resale values. The costs of the
new RTCR, new transformer, and
their installation are US$350,000,
TABLE 4 Capital cost and energy savings.
US$160,000, and US$100,000, respectively. Assume that the same
Rectifier Type
RTCR
TCR
SDR
energy cost for the SDR system as
Energy savings (US$ million/year)
1.2
0.1
0
before (US$.942 million/year) and
Capital savings (US$ million)
2.0
2.4
0
the savings due to RTCR energy
Total savings after six years (US$ million)
9.1
3.1
0
recuperation into the ac line of 40%
Total savings after 12 years (US$ million)
16.2
3.8
0
Total capital (US$ million)
16.0
15.6
18.0
(a higher number than in Table 4 is
Total energy (US$ million/year)
2.759
3.824
3.942
used because there is no increase
Number of substations
5
5
6
in space). As before, we do not
Installed substation cost (US$ million)
3.20
3.12
3.00
Rectifier cost (US$)
350,000
270,000
150,000
account for energy absorption by
nearby trains. Table 5 contains the
cost of the upgrade data.
From Table 5, the payback peTABLE 5 Costs of upgrade to the RTCR.
riod for the upgrade to the RTCR is
less than three years. The addiRTCR
SDR
tional advantage of the upgrade
Energy savings (US$ million/year)
1.58
0
system throughput and train perEquipment and installation cost (US$ million)
3.66
0
formance improvements due to
Pay-back period (years)
2.3
0
Total savings after ten years (US$ million)
12.1
0
increased dc bus voltage conseTotal savings after 20 years (US$ million)
27.9
0
quently increased the train voltTotal energy cost (US$ million/year)
2.365
3.942
age (see the TCR Voltage Gain
Number of substations
6
6
New rectifier cost (US$)
350,000
0
over SDR section).
New transformer cost (US$)
160,000
0
In a situation where reduced headInstallation cost, per substation (US$)
100,000
0
way or heavier trains necessitate an

88 |||

IEEE VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE | SEPTEMBER 2009

SILICON DIODE RECTIFIER (SDR) USED IN A


MAJORITY OF U.S. TRACTION SYSTEMS IS A
40-YEAR-OLD TECHNOLOGY.

RTCR Cost
TSR Cost
SDR Cost
RTCR/SDR Saving

120.0
100.0
80.0

50.0

60.0

RTCR/SDR Upgrade Saving

40.0
20.0
0.0
0

10

15
Years

20

25

30

FIGURE 10 Costs of ownership with different rectifiers.

Total Cost (million dollars)

Total Cost (million dollars)

140.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
5

upgrade of existing SDR system calling for adding additional SDR substations, an upgrade to the RTCR offers an
attractive alternative:
n no new substations with related real estate cost
n capital expenditures with payback period of less than
two years
n substantial energy savings
n the performance improvement up to 60% is a free
benefit.
Figure 11 shows the savings of the substation upgrade
from SDR to RTCR.

Conclusions
This article estimates energy savings through braking
energy recuperation and capital cost savings through
increased substation spacing. The TCRs provide advantages over diode rectifiers: better voltage regulation and
fault current limiting translating into some operational
savings (energy savings through increased dc bus voltage,
improved service life) and capital savings (reduced number of substations).
Assuming just 15% spacing increase in the new substation installations, capital savings with TCR are more than
10%. The additional savings with RTCR over SDR are
through braking energy recuperation back to the ac line.
Energy savings can be as high as 50% depending on the
train speed profile, train car efficiency, rail resistance, etc.
Upgrading existing SDR substations to RTCR gives
substantial energy savings and has a payback of two to two
and a half years, improving throughput up to 60% without
incurring additional real estate and construction expenses.

SEPTEMBER 2009 | IEEE VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE

10

15
Years

20

25

30

10.0

FIGURE 11 SDR to RTCR substation upgrade savings.

Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges Tom Young of Reuel for emphasizing the subject of TCR energy recuperation; Bob Puciloski and Asha Handa-Pierre from Long Island Rail Road
(LIRR) and Gordon Yu from SYSTRA for supplying application data on M7 trains operation; Chuck Ross of PGH Wong
Engineering, John Frederick of Precision Power Systems
and Technology (PPST), Steve Sims of Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART), and Raymond Stritmatter of Parsons for
supplying equipment and installation data and helpful discussions on the subject.

Author Information
Vitaly Gelman (vgelman@vgcontrols.com) received
his M.S.E.E. degree in 1976 from Moscow Power University. He is the president and founder of VG Controls,
which has been providing traction products and other
industrial electronic products since 1984 for companies like Asea Brown Boveri (ABB), BART, LIRR, Powell,
Controlled Power Corporation (CPC), Phelps Dodge,
and others.

Reference
[1] V. Gelman and S. Sagareli, Implementation of new technologies in
traction power systems, in Proc. JRC 2004: 2004 ASME/IEEE Joint Rail
Conf., pp. 141146.

||| 89