310 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL.
3, MAY/JUNE 1972
Propulsion Motor Requirements for
Mass ransportation
EDWARD P. PRIEBE,
Abstract-Mass transportation is being recognized as a critical
need in modern society. The application requirements of propulsion
motors for rail passenger vehicles can be derived from elementary
mechanics of motion. The implications in motor design are dis-
cussed in this paper.
SURVEY OF THE INDUSTRY
THE RAIL passenger transportation industry in the
United States can be traced through recent history
from interurban and streetcars that used 600-V axle-hung
motors. They did no dynamic braking.
Clear departures from past practice came separately
in heavy rapid applications and for lightweight President
Conference Committee (PCC) streetcars. The latter used
small truck-mounted 300/600-V motors and dynamic brak-
ing beginning in the 1930's. About 1946 the New York
City Transit Authority purchased a larger truck-mounted
300/600-V motor providing high torque acceleration and
dynamic braking from moderate speeds on big heavy cars.
Lightweight rapid-transit properties called for an inter-
mediate motor as PCC technology was extended to higher
performance, higher speed, and larger cars.
Dynamic braking was first added as something that
came practically free from the motors needed for motoring.
Motoring time was usually enough greater than braking
time that braking added only a little to rms current.
The usefulness of dynamic braking is now well accepted,
and it has become of greater importance as performance is
increased.
Performance has steadily increased up to the present.
Schedule speeds have crept up as stations got farther
apart and old cars were retired. Dead weight in the cars
has come steadily down. Acceleration and deceleration
rates have come up to practical limits with automatic
notching. Load weighing maintains acceleration and
deceleration rates regardless of passenger load. Prac-
tically all these factors have added to peak braking
demands.
Emphasis on schedule speed, first cost, power demand,
operating cost, and comfort varies from property to
property and time to time, but safety and reliability were
always assumed. While the fundamentals of motion
Paper TOD-71-134, approved by the Land Transportation
Committee of this IEEE Industry Applications Society for publica-
tion in this TRANSACTIONS. MIanuscript released for publication
October 25, 1971.
The author is with the Propulsion Equipment Products Depart-
ment, General Electric Company, Erie, Pa. 16501.
IA-8, NO.
SENIOR MEMBER, IEEE
apply to any kind of vehicle, steel wheel on steel rail
with one motor per axle is periodically rediscovered
as the best way to move people in an urban area.
A new set of conditions necessary for competitive mass
transportation in the modern "urban-sprawl" environ-
ment has been called super rapid transit (SRT). The
name will be used here, although it will need to be changed
eventually. San Francisco was the first to begin laying out
such a system; PATCO (Philadelphia-Lindenwold) is the
first system of this class to go into service [1]. It operates
reliably on 600 V and standard-track gauge. The SRT
need as identified here is for acceleration and deceleration
rates to comfort and adhesion limits, schedule speed of
about 30 to 35 mi/h with station spacings of a mile or so,
75 mi/h maximum operating speed, and 70-ft cars.
These can be met by a motor that just fits in the space
available in an inside-journal standard-gauge truck.
Similar equipment has been applied to (heavier) 85-ft
railroad-type cars with longer station spacings and lower
acceleration rates for the Long Island Railroad and Penn-
Central's Hudson and Harlem and New Haven lines.
High-speed intercity passenger cars have developed
into another need. The performance requirements for this
class of service are well beyond those of any other rail
passenger transportation need; the service is more like
railroad than transit.
The situation today is characterized by contrary
pressures. Transit cars are practically all purchased by
governmental agencies, and in some cases continuity of
railway operating experience has been lost. Pressure may
be for dramatic breakthroughs, while operators might
rather have what is standard and trouble free. MV[ost
properties are able to maintain equipment satisfactorily,
but a few find maintenance to be a real burden. Auto-
mation, static control, and the political necessity of
obtaining funds are liable to hold primary attention, with
real application work minimized. It seems appropriate
to review the fundamentals of mechanics involved in
transit propulsion application and discuss their implica-
tions on the motors.
TRANSIT APPLICATION
Fig. 1 shows speed-time and distance-time curves for
various performance characteristics. The curves are
lettered to correspond with their respective speed-tractive
effort curves on Fig. 2.
Fig. l(a) attempts to show instantaneous transfer.
This would be the ideal transportation, with people just
disappearing at the origin and appearing simultaneously
PRIEBE: PROPULSION MOTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR MASS TRANSPORTATION 311

t C)
z
0
U)

=
U) E-
U) U)
H
P4 Es
H
P:

+'l

TIME TIME

(a) Fig. 2.

at the destination. This can be shown in the distance-time

coordinates by a step change. It would require an infinite
speed for an infinitesimal time, which only can be hinted
at in speed-time coordinates. Tractive effort is the force
that produces acceleration, and acceleration is the rate of
change of speed. Instantaneous transfer calls for infinite
z
acceleration to infinite speed and infinite deceleration to
uo
zero speed, so there is nothing that can be plotted on
H
Fig. 2. Thus no motor could be expected to do the job;
that is just as well because passengers could not stand the
infinite acceleration anyway.
(b)
Fig. 1(b) shows transportation that is acceleration
limited. Constant acceleration is shown for half the
distance, with equal deceleration to a stop when the
desired distance has been covered. This produces an S-
shaped distance-time curve. The constant acceleration
requires constant positive tractive effort with deceleration
as a mirror image. No time is spent at top speed.
Fig. 1(c) is a modification of Fig. l(b), which introduces
a speed limit. It is seen that a small amount of time
spent at a limiting speed will be barely perceptible in the
distance-time curve. A considerable portion of the speed
peak can be cut off before showing much change in the
0-

TIME distance-time curve. Equipment and civil engineering

(C)
economics and practicalities can determine the speed
limit. Fig. 1(c) is the same as Fig. 1(b) on the speed-
tractive effort coordinates except that the maximum
Opp
speed is lower and some time is spent at full speed.
Fig. l(d) is a modification of Fig. l(c), which introduces
a power limit. It is recognized that speed times tractive
effort is power, so a hyperbola on the speed-tractive
effort coordinates represents a given power level. The
power required to accelerate at a given rate increases
linearly with speed. In Fig. l(d) the tractive effort, and
z
hence acceleration rate, is reduced to stay within a power-
demand limit. After continued acceleration at constant
power, further acceleration is shown at decreasing power.
U)

U)

TIME TIME The speed-time plot shows the integral of acceleration,

(d)
Fig. 1. (a) Instantaneous transfer. (b) Acceleration
Speed limited. (d) Power limited.
and the distance-time plot shows the integral of speed.
The speed-tractive effort curve may be power limited to a
limnited. (e) considerable extent without affecting the distance-time
curve greatly.
312
Making these modifications to accommodate prac-
ticality and economics has resulted in a speed-tractive
effort curve that can be produced by a dc series motor and
simple control. This provides an understanding of why
the dc series motor has predominated in transportation
applications.
Quantitative treatment of these parameters requires
some knowledge of the application. If stations are close
together, the initial acceleration rate and the deceleration
rate will be most important; for long station spacing, the
top speed and sustained acceleration to reach it are most
important.
Having developed the kind of propulsion characteristics
needed for mass transportation, it is possible to consider
the effects of the various following application parameters.
Acceleration Rate: Economics, wheel-to-rail adhesion,
and passenger comfort have pretty well settled this at
2.5-3 mi/h/s with all axles motored.
Car Weight on Which Acceleration Rate Applies: This,
with rate, determines accelerating tractive effort or torque.
(F = ma, with a constant of 91.2 lb/ton/mi/h/s. When
the apparent weight due to rotary inertia is added, the
constant can usually be estimated to be 100 lb/ton/mi/
h/s or about 0.05 g.)
Speed to Which Rate Is Carried: This determines peak
motoring horsepower and power demand, and greatly
affects schedule speed, power consumption, and motor
characteristics.
Speed to Which Constant Power Is Carried: During
field shunting the motor operates at constant power.
It is generally desirable to make this last as long as
possible, but it is a severe requirement on motor field
control ability as limited by field space, saturation,
commutation, and transient response. M\linimum field
strength is a design limit based on these factors.
Weak Field Characteristic: The shape of the motor curve
(Fig. 1(d)) affects speed-time-distance performance, power
consumption, balancing speed, etc. The spread between
full-field and weak-field characteristics is a measure of the
tractive-effort control available (say, for automation).
Maximum Permissible Speed: This is defined as the
highest new wheel armature rotational speed for which the
motor design is satisfactory. Then there is a corresponding
car speed that must never be exceeded. M\otor design
contemplates the increased rotational speed due to wheel
wear.
Maximum Actual Speed: This is a function of balancing
speed, grades, station spacing, etc. While motors used to
be designed to balance at about 4 of maximum permissible
speed, operators now want to run right up to it. This
is mainly a result of demands for increased performance.
Realistic understanding of maximum speed is most
needed when there is power enough to accelerate into
overspeed. All normal or abnormal operation must be
within the maximum permissible motor speed. Any over-
speed detection devices will have operating tolerances;
these, too, must be included.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS) MAY/JUNE 1972
rms Current: This is the heating limit. Together with
motor voltage, it fixes nameplate horsepower. The rating
speed of a self-ventilated motor should be compared to
schedule speed to see that rated ventilation is averaged.
Because transit motors that use field control spend a
predictable part of each operating cycle in weak field, the
exciting field rating need not be as great as the armature
rating. The exciting field rating determines rated speed.
While a motor must rate the service, and rating helps
fix the active material needed in the armature, the mini-
mum diameter is fixed by commutation criteria to handle
instantaneous power as will be discussed.
Dynamic Braking Rate: From equipment, adhesion,
and passenger comfort considerations, braking rates are
limited to the same neighborhood as accelerating rates.
The current that produces a certain tractive effort in
motoring will produce more braking effort due to reversal
of losses.
Car Weight on Which Braking Rate Applies: With
rate, this determines maximum braking effort and braking
torque of the motor.
Speed on TWhich Braking Applies: Speed times effort is
power, and the maximum dynamic braking power is the
highest a motor must handle. This is a short-time phe-
nomenon; commutation is limiting, not heating. The power-
handling capacity of a machine is a function of its winding
type and of armature diameter.
Motor r/min at Peak Braking Point: The power limit
of a motor varies with r/min. Voltage limits may become
severe at high speeds. For this reason, maximum permis-
sible speed on mechanical grounds may be misleading.
Many motor designs are inherently limited in dynamic
braking well below mechanical maximum permissible
speed. On the other hand, the new super rapid transit
motor is designed so it cannot be put into commutator
voltage trouble.
Motor Characteristics: The motoring characteristics are
built into a machine and must be used for braking.
Since braking produces similar torque at higher'speed, the
braking voltage is much higher, and peak voltage becomes
limiting. The design recourse is to put in more commutator
segments, tending to increase diameter. This is part of the
diameter limit on power. The maximum voltage in
dynamic braking is practically the motoring voltage
times the ratio of braking speed to the motoring speed to
which full rate is carried.
Line Voltage: Since braking voltage is a factor times
motoring voltage, line voltage makes a difference in
braking ability. The 300/600-V transit motor reaches
about 900 V in braking, which can be within the ability
of reasonably sized commutators. A 600-V motor in full
dynamic braking would need an unreasonable number
of segments, and produce a voltage that would be trouble-
some for control to handle. Full dynamic braking has not
been applied to 600-, 750/1500-, or 1500/3000-V motors,
and the prospects are dim. The 1000-V system is an
example; the 500-V motor characteristics want to produce
PRIEBE: PROPULSION MOTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR MASS TRANSPORTATION
over 1200 V in braking, but there normally is not enough
commutator for that kind of voltage; if similar perform-
ance is required, it will require a significantly larger motor,
which must run slower. The 300/600-V motor for equiv-
alent performance is lighter, smaller, cheaper, relatively
conservative, and, above all, fits in standard-gauge in-
board journal trucks.
Line Voltage Variation: A normal line voltage is used for
characteristics. Variations affect motor speed directly.
Excessive range could present problems.
Gear Ratio and Wheel Size: Apart from space considera-
tions, gear ratio and wheel size fix the motor r/min in
relation to car speed. Within a given electrical design,
gear ratio can be traded for motor core length in proportion
without changing characteristics or motor electrical
limits very much. This is mentioned to show how a stan-
dard motor can fill somewhat different needs by using
different gear ratios; various gear ratios look like various
core lengths.
Automation: Automation has been considered as a
means of improving motor performance leading to er-
roneous conclusions. First, it must be recognized that the
performance capability of a motor is the speed-time-
distance run that can be had on the motoring and braking
characteristics, within motor, operating, and adhesion
limits. Any attempt to regulate performance must neces-
sarily do so below maximum performance capability.
Thus average performance and schedule speed will be
less than performance capability by the amount wanted for
regulating ability. This is true whether manually operated
or automated. Leeway on time in motion is usually added
for manual operation. However, should one take schedule
speed from speed-time-distance calculations on the motor
characteristics and then try to meet it automated, trouble
would follow. There is no magic in automation; the motor
still must do the job.
Some interrelated design factors of dc motors should
also be considered.
Armature Diameter and Winding: The instantaneous
power-handling capacity of a machine is practically
linear with armature diameter for a given type winding.
There are two common types of armature windings: lap
and wave. A four-pole lap winding theoretically has more
power commutating capacity in a given diameter than a
wave winding. Thus, where diameter is limited and
dynamic braking is needed, a lap winding would normally
be used. However, a small slow machine for high voltage
will want to come out wave wound, while a large fast
machine for low voltage will want to come out lap wound.
Any departure from optimum proportions of copper and
iron will increase the weight. For the same armature
diameter and ratings, a lap-wound machine will need more
commutator segments than one with a wave winding.
Thus a requirement for a small high-voltage machine
with high commutating capacity is self-contradictory.
Minimum Commutator Diameter: The minimum diameter
that a commutator may be depends on how many seg-
313
ments it will contain, how far apart the brushholders
must be to withstand maximum voltage, and the propor-
tions of the commutator segment blank. In most cases
these criteria on minimum commutator diameter all
limit at once.
Maximum Motor Speed: Armature and commutator
peripheral speeds and centrifugal forces must be kept
within limits. For constant peripheral speed, maximum
motor r/min varies inversely with armature or commutator
diameter. Some customers specify maximum commutator
peripheral speed.
Ventilation: Ventilation is needed to remove the heat
caused by losses in a motor. Self-ventilation means that a
fan built within the motor provides ventilation. Air
delivery is then proportional to motor speed, and the
power required to drive the fan is proportional to the
cube of the speed. Separate ventilation is more efficient
because the blower can be designed for one rotation and
one speed. The thermal time constant of the motor
depends on how great a heat sink it is and on the ratio of
heat storage to heat dissipation. Most heat is generated
when motor speed is low. In classical cyclic transit service
with stops not over a few minutes apart, self-ventilation
that averages enough air will keep motor temperature
within a few degrees of average. On the other hand, the
Northeast Corridor application has stop-to-stop intervals
of about 2 h, and the thermal cycling that would result
with self-ventilation would shorten the life of the motor.
Separate ventilation is needed where cycle times are more
than a few minutes. Separate ventilation requires ducts
and leads more easily to a clean air system. Self-ventila-
tion's main merit is that it is cheap; its main disadvantage
is that it provides dirty ventilating air. Occasionally
the fan will make the difference between a motor's fitting
or not fitting in the space available.
CONCLUSIONs ABOUT DC MOTOR
DESIGN AND APPLICATION
Internally powered vehicles, or vehicles with on-board
power-conditioning apparatus, are much less limited.
With a certain engine power available and generator
excitation set so the generator loads the engine correctly,
any motor will produce the right power at the wheels.
Within the realm of reason, any traction motor will pro-
duce the required performance on a diesel electric. So
long as equipment is correctly matched, the engine
power times the machine efficiencies gives the rail power.
Two unlike units may be trained because power is all that
matters; the proportions of volts and amperes are of no
consequence.
On the other hand, where constant voltage is collected
for the motors from a supply outside the vehicle, the
motor characteristics with that supply are all important.
These characteristics show definite relations of speed and
tractive effort as functions of current. Of course, nothing
is free and what goes in must come out; volts times
amperes is power input, and tractive effort times speed is
314
the same power allowing for efficiency. It is sufficient to
think of speed against current, recognizing that tractive
effort will have to behave as the inverse of a change in
speed curve. Thus for each desired speed curve a dif-
ferent motor characteristic is implied. Some adjustment
may be made with field strength and gear ratio, but most
different characteristics imply different motor designs.
If a multiplicity of custom designs is to be avoided,
operating properties will have to eliminate odd line
voltage and performance requirements.
In an industrial motor business, the multiplicity of
customer needs may be met with various windings in
modular frames. For transportation it is seldom possible
to put the capability for various characteristics into one
frame because of the stringent limits on size and weight.
Any one design usually uses all the space available.
Another important conclusion is that somewhere
dynamic braking becomes not just a concern but a real
strain, compared to the motor needed anyhow for motoring.
It was said before that the instantaneous power-com-
mutating ability of a motor depends on armature di-
ameter. By affecting the space available, one truck ar-
rangement may give full dynamic braking practically
free, while another may not even permit it. The motoring
speed characteristic greatly influences how much of a
strain dynamic braking is in a given case. The peak power
handled by the motor in motoring is at the point where
current-limit acceleration reaches the motor charac-
teristic. The peak power handled by the motor in braking
is where the product of speed and braking effort is greatest,
usually at maximum speed. Assuming similar acceleration
and deceleration rates (as is normally the case), the peak
power in braking is seen to exceed that in motoring by the
ratio of the speeds. On the PATCO super rapid transit
application, acceleration rate is held to about 24 mi/h
and braking is required from 75 mi/h (tapered slightly)
giving a power ratio of about 3: 1. The higher the motoring
performance, the less severe the braking becomes rel-
atively.
The excess power to be handled instantaneously in
braking must be taken in volts or in amperes or both. If
accelerating current is the maximum current for which the
brushes and commutating poles are adequate, braking
current should not be higher and the excess power must
be taken in volts. Taking 3:1 as an approximate ratio in
commutator voltage, it is seen that the voltage that must
be handled in braking on a 300-V motor is about 900 V.
This is within the insulation limits for a 600-V supply
and is about the limit for the commutator size needed
anyhow for rating in motoring, so the 300/600-V motor is a
natural fit. (A 300/600-V motor means a 300-V winding
insulated for 600 V, intended to be used two in a series.)
Similar arithmetic shows how dynamic braking becomes a
real strain on a higher voltage motor, even though the
motoring characteristics for the latter might be provided
in the same motor size as a 300/600-V motor.
If the excess power to be handled in dynamic braking
were taken all or partly in current instead of in voltage,
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, MAY/JUNE 1972
motor design would usually suffer. Brushes and com-
mutating poles must be made adequate for the highest
current, so they would have to be larger. The ability
of a motor to commutate current is limited to a product of
amperes times r/min, and handling greater current at high
r/min as in braking would require a larger armature di-
ameter to relieve this limitation.
The characteristics of the machine are set by the
motoring requirements, and full field in braking will
produce the extra power in volts. Weak field would be
needed to get it in current. The weak field condition
needed to change the operating point increases the flux
distortion almost as fast as it reduces the volts, so there
is little gain in peak volts per bar. One alternative would
be to use pole-face compensating windings but they add
more complications.
All the aforementioned is based on four motors per car.
Dynamic braking requirements for any but the most
mediocre performance will be beyond the capacity of two
motor-sized motors per car. By motor-sized motor, it is
meant that braking does not change greatly the size of the
motor required for motoring. If, for example, braking re-
quired a peak power double that available in the motor-
sized motor, the armature diameter would have to be
doubled and speed cut in half. The core length would be
halved, but the D2L is still doubled, and the result would
certainly not be a motor-sized motor.
Sometimes dynamic braking is reduced at high speed.
Wheel-to-rail adhesion may not support full braking
effort at high speed. When motor limits are involved, the
high-speed dynamic braking may be severely limited,
leaving most of the energy for mechanical brakes.
PROJECTIONS TO THE FUTURE
A clean break is being experienced in the mass transit
business. Rail rapid transit has been recognized as a
necessary part of the city. Governmental awareness and
acceptance of this social need has spurred interest in
selling rail rapid transit to the public. The PATCO line is
a living example that the new image is both technically
and politically sound.
Along with the political and image changes, there has
been pressure for technological breakthroughs. Some of the
possibilities can be assessed in relation to the basic function
of moving people. Few people on the car know or care
what is underneath so long as their service is safe, com-
fortable, reliable, and fast.
Schedule speed is important to the passenger. This is
the second integral of the speed-tractive effort curve,
so it is seen that many of the little wrinkles on speed-
tractive effort characteristics that are vitally important to
the motor designer are of little interest to the salability of
transportation. It appears that several discrete per-
formance levels could be recognized and small differences
dropped from consideration in the interest of standard-
ization.
Solid-state control offers the possibility of operating
propulsion motors at points that are not on the line
PRIEBE: PROPULSION MOTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR MASS TRANSPORTATION 315

voltage characteristics. This was possible with resistor
control, but solid-state can be theoretically lossless. The
chopper is a means of suppressing dc motor performance
by time-ratio voltage control. It cannot increase the per-
formance level of a dc motor. Its ultimate position relative
to resistance control will have to be judged on the basis of
overall costs. It may have clear economic advantage where
real needs exist for smooth power modulation or speed
regulated operation.
Inverter-induction motor drive is a system that elim-
inates the dc-series propulsion motor. Since the motor
characteristics for transportation are those inherently
provided by the series motor the power conditioning
control must make the ac motors simulate them. Theoret-
ically, as long as the motors have the required peak
torque, speed, and ratings needed on the line voltage
available, any performance characteristic within this
envelope could be produced by proper logic. The ac motor
escapes the shape and speed limitations imposed by the
commutator of a dc motor, and the inverter provides the
theoretical possibility of regenerative braking. Cost and
value studies will be needed to determine if there is a
place for inverter-induction motor drive.
For the foreseeable future, it appears that the dc-series
propulsion motor has inherent advantages that assure its
continued dominance. Commutation of peak power is
most limiting. As long as dc motors are with us and power-
handling requirements do not decrease, armature and
commutator diameters must remain as large as they are
or even grow larger. Progress in reducing size, weight,
and cost will have to come primarily out of motor length,
with higher speed a major factor. Progress may be expected
to reduce the electromagnetic material needed for a motor
somewhat. Specific areas of development include thinner
insulations, higher temperature operation, better creepage
materials, higher brush current densities, etc. Higher
quality maintenance would permit tighter designs.
Clean ventilating air would be a major step in reducing
maintenance requirements or permitting working the
creepage separations at higher voltage stresses.
It appears that the dc-series propulsion motor will be
around for transportation work as long as it can com-
mutate the required power. Consideration of its advan-
tages and limitations will provide a workable foundation
from which mass transportation can project its new image
for its essential role in modern society.
REFERENCE
[1.] A. L. Gardner, H. H. Hennell, and I. W. Lichtenfels, "Propulsion
and automation equipment for PATCO's rapid transit cars,"
IEEE Trans. Ind. Gen. Appl., vol. IGA-7, pp. 760-768, Nov./-
Dee. 1971.

Edward P. Priebe (M'54-SM'61) was born in Cleveland, Ohio, on June 5, 1929. He received the
B. S. degree in electrical engineering from Ohio State University, Columbus, in 1953, and the
M. S. degree in engineering from Pennsylvania State University, University Park, in 1965.
In the past 12 years he has had increasing responsibility for electrical design and applica-
tion of propulsion and auxiliary machines for land transportation vehicles. Recent work
has included the Northeast Corridor and PATCO high-speed transit equipment. He is
presently Senior Electrical Engineer for the Propulsion Equipment Products Department,
Transportation Systems Division, General Electric Company, Erie, Pa.
Mr. Priebe is a Registered Professional Engineer in the States of Ohio and Pennsylvania.