EVALUATION OF FOUR DIFFERENT RAIL RAPID TRANSIT PROPULSION SYSTEMS

At UMTA request, APTA evaluated four different propulsion systems. Due to lack of precise estimates for acquisition, maintenance, and traction power savings, this analysis is qualitative and adheres to the guideline that system elements will be compared subjectively, based on known design features and conservative extrapolation. A comparison was made of Garrett's flywheel energy storage, GE's AC propulsion (pulse-width modulation - PWM), Delco's self-synchronous motor, and a regenerative chopper to determine life cycle costs and related factors that would impact on eventual selection and application for revenue service.

• Corporate Authors:

  American Public Transit Association

  Technical and Research Services Department
  Washington, DC  United States  20036

  Urban Mass Transportation Administration

  Urban Rapid Rail Vehicle and Systems Program
  Washington, DC  United States  20590
• Authors:
  • Greene, F S
• Publication Date: 1976-11

Media Info

• Pagination: 20 p.

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Alternating current motors; Analysis; Chopper circuits; Costs; Flywheels; Life cycle analysis; Life cycle costing; Motors; Propulsion; Pulse duration modulation; Pulse modulation; Rapid transit; Rapid transit cars; Regenerative braking; Solid state devices; Synchronous motors; Thyristors; Traction; Traction drives; Vehicle power plants
• Uncontrolled Terms: Cost analysis; Propulsion systems
• Old TRIS Terms: Choppers; Electric choppers; Pulse modulated control; Rapid transit railways; Solid state
• Subject Areas: Finance; Public Transportation; Vehicles and Equipment;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 00167086
• Record Type: Publication
• Source Agency: National Technical Information Service
• Report/Paper Numbers: UMTA/URRVS-77/01 Final Rpt.
• Contract Numbers: DOT-UT-60060
• Files: NTIS, TRIS, USDOT
• Created Date: Oct 29 1981 12:00AM