DESIGN ASSESSMENT and IMPLEMENTATION POTENTIAL of F

ASYNCHRONOUS A.C. TRACTION MOTOR SYS"EW3 for NORTH AMERICA

G. B. Anderson
Project Engineer
A. J. Peters
Director, Mechanical Research Division
Research and Test Department
Association of American Railroads
Chicago, Illinois

Three-phase asynchronousA.C. traction systems are now commonly used to power locomotives,transit vehicles, and light rail vehicles in Europe.
Control system technology for the use of asynchronous A.C. motors in locomotiveshas steadily developed over the last twenty years, with much success.
This has mainly been brought about by the advent of solid state, high current capacity switching devices, which has made the control of the variable
frequency induction motor highly reliable and less costly. Most locomotives now being built in Europe, for both allelectric and diesel-electric
applications, incorporate three-phase A.C. traction motors. In the last few years several transit and commuter cars, designed for North American service,
have also incorporated this technology. In addition, several prototype mainline passenger and heavy haul freight locomotiveshave gone into service or
are on the drawing board for North American service.
The objective of this paper is to present A.C. traction system technology in light of the issues of design maturity, current state of the art,
adaptability to the North American freight railroad environment, and its introduction into North America. This paper contains a description of what a
North American A.C. traction system 1ocOmOtivemight look like, descriptions of current European and North American A.C. tracdon system equipped
locomotives, the issue of wheel diameter mismatch, and the near term prospects for implementation of this technology in North America.

INTRODUCTION

In North America, the interest in A.C. traction motor technology

for mainline freight locomotives has been more guarded than in Europe.
However, as a result of growing interest of the Class I freight railroads
in this technology, the AAR was requested to carry out a technology
assessment project with the following three-fold obiective:
*
to perform an independent assessment of the existing and
emerging A.C. traction motor technology,
*
to identify non-standard maintenance or operational
requirements, and
*
to disseminate this information to the AAR member railroads.

By far the major factor driving the assessment of A.C. motor

system is the advantage of improved traction motor reliability. The
high cost of maintaining present D.C. traction motors, and the seeming
limit of this technology for significant future improvement has given

impetus to the search for a new technology. The A.C. inductionmotor,

while not a new technology in itself, has, never the less, been rapidly
developed as a variable speed system suitable for traction over the last
twenty years through the evolution of the fast switching, high power
thyristor for motor control.

The advantages of A.C. traction motor systems are well

documented. Among the most significant are:
*
Improved motor reliability (ie. reduced maintenance) and a
potential for increased locomotive maintenance intervals,
*
increased utiliionof available adhesion and improved adhesion
control,
*
continuous application of tractive effort over the entire speed
range,
*
improved dynamic braking speed range, and
*
reduced motor weight and size for an identical power rating.

The major issues to be addressed in a study of a new technology

for implementation into a servicedriven industry like railroading are:
1.
What is the current state-of-the-art, and is the technology
mature?
2.
Is the technology directly adaptableto the intended environment,
can it be implemented without further substantial development?
3.
How does the cost of this technology compare to that of the
existing equipment now in use (first cost and more importantly,
life cycle cost, taking into accouIltthe reliability and maintenance
aspects)?
4.
Will implementing this technology improve productivity and

Some other potential benefits are:

*
a downsizing of the engine alternator with a weight and cost
saving,
*
a locomotive design that delivers a broader speed - horsepower
characteristic for more universal use and increased productivity,

this technology is untried in the North American environment

and to some extent at typical North American power ratings,
the power control system is more complex when compared to a
conventional Noah Americaa freight locomotive though less so
when compared to the latest series of D.C. motored locomotives,
and
there is likely to be a higher capital cost in acquiriig the
technology.

and
increase in overall efficiency.

Some of the disadvantages are:

151

5.

overall service reliability?

Does this technology give good prospects for further productivity
enhancements over its projected life?

Lc L l *

The methods used to perform the technology assessmenton A.C.

traction motor systems are as follows:
*
to gather background data on A.C. traction systems as designed
and built over the recent past,
*
to evaluate the existing railroad service experience with A.C.
traction equipped locomotives, largely in Europe,
*
to analyze the A.C. system design for maturity and integrity, and
*
to evaluate and participate, where possible, in supplemental
testing of A.C. traction equipped locomotiveprototypes in North
America.

I
I

A-----

As a means of gathering data related to a design assessment, a

visit was made to the main European suppliers of three-phase A.C.
equipment. These were ASEA and Brown Boveri, now merged into
ABB Transportation, and Siemens AG. In addition, the North American
locomotive manufacturers (GE and EMD) were contacted. The bulk of
the material presented in this paper either came from interviews with the
equipment manufacturers or from literature assembled during the
information gathering.

figure 1

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

A.C. Traction System Locomotive Block Diagram

There is the possibility of downsizing the alternator in an A.C.

motored locomotive compared to a D.C. motored unit of the same power
rating. This is due to the lower current needed by an A.C. motor at low
speed - high tractive effort conditions.

A second method to be employed in gathering information was

an involvement in testing of A.C. traction locomotive prototypes. This
has consisted to date of testing the Amtrak rebuilt A.C. locomotive,
#202, on the Roll Dynamics Unit (RDU) at the Transportation Test
Center (ITC) in Pueblo, Colorado in the fall of 1988. This test, covered
in AAR Report R-732 [l], was mainly for the purpose of exploring the
issue of wheel diameter variation, motor cooling, and system efficiency.
The AAR technology assessment has been divided into two
logical halves, that being the overall design assessment followed by a
maintenance, reliability, and cost study. The design assessmenthas been
completed, while the maintenance and cost study is ongoing. The
maintenance and reliability data gathering has included a visit to three
European railways that operate substantial fleets of A.C. traction
equipped locomotives. This information, while the best available, cannot
address all the questions raised by the prospects of North American
implementation. North American prototypes are, however, very few and
not likely to increase substantially in the near future. Therefore, it is not
possible to address all the questions raised above, but it is the intent of
the authors to present the conclusions reached to date and present a
method for addressing the remaining questions.

R p r e 2 D.C.Tradion System Locomotive Block Diagram

The rectifier is a standard component for either A.C. or D.C.

traction systems. The purpose of the rectifier is to convert the threephase voltage and current from the alternator to an acceptable D.C.
voltage and current output. The D.C. output is fed directly to the
traction motors in a D.C.-based system or to the inverter@ in an A.C.
system. The rectifier, which consists of a bank of silicon diodes, is
typically an integral part of the alternator.

CURRENT Sl'ATE-OF-THEM T IN A.C. TRACTION SY!Sl'EMS

In order to ensure a common understanding of A.C. technology,
it will be helpful to define the componentsused in A.C. traction systems
as compared to a standard North American diesel-electric D.C. motor
equipped locomotive. A block diagram of a typical A.C. traction system
locomotive is shown in Figure 1. For comparison purposes, a D.C.
motor equipped locomotive block diagram is shown in Figure 2.

The heart of an A.C. traction system is the inverter, whose

counterpart in a D.C.-based system is the motor commutator. The
inverter converts the rectified D.C. voltage and current to a three-phase
variable voltage and frequency supply that is fed directly to the
asynchronous traction motors. An essential component of the inverter
is a special type of semiconductor device known as a thyristor. A
thyristor is a high power capacity switch, which turns the current on (and
off in the case of a GTO device) in response to a trigger signal.
Numerous thyristors are required to produce three-phase A.C. power
from a D.C. input (six GTO devices, minimum, in the latest traction
inverter designs).

The major components of the A.C. system in Figure 1 are the

diesel engine, alternator, rectifier, traction inverter(s), auxiliary inverter
(optional), and traction motors. Also shown is the control computer that
monitors and controls the other components.
Of the components in the diagram shown in Figure 1, the diesel
engine and alternator are, as components, essentially unchanged by a
conversion from D.C. to A.C. traction, but the control of these
components may differ. On European dieselelectric locomotives and
possibly the newer North American prototypes, the engine governor is
controlled by the locomotive control computer, with engine speed
determined by demand feedback. Voltage regulation for the alternator
is also under the control of the computer. On a North American D.C.
diesel-electric the engine output (rpm) is set by the governor in
accordancewith the throttle setting. The governor also positions the load
regulator (main power controlling device) for the main generator or
alternator.

The most important element in the locomotiveblock diagram of

Figure 1 is the asynchronous traction motor. These induction motors are
built with squirrel cage rotors, and capacities ranging from 200 to 1500
kilowatts 0.
Induction motors are among the simplest of all electrical
machines having no mechanically contacting parts except bearings, and
virtually no maintenance requirements. The stator windingsof the motor
are the only elements that are powered and, therefore, are the only
windings insulated, so problems from moisture or dirt are minimized.
The rotor consists of uninsulated copper bars brazed or welded to shortcircuiting rings. There is no commutator, slip rings, or brushes to be
152

maintained.

A list of European railways and tramportation providers now

operating A.C. traction drive locomotives is given in Figure 3. This list
does not include any passenger equipment such as heavy or light rail
transit or city trams. The list does include the heavy switcher & light
road locomotive up to the largest European road locomotive, whether
freight, passenger, or dual purpose.

Induction motors may or may not be encased in a frame or

housing, but all locomotive-sized motors are forced-air cooled by
external fans. The pinion end bearing is lubricated with the gear case
oil, while the nonpinion end bearing is grease lubricated. The pinion
bearing should be the only periodic maintenance item on the motor.

The list of locomotives shows that of a total of 375 units (and

300 more on order), 222 are diesel-electric (120 more on order) and 153
are electric (180 more on order). It is interesting to note that all of these
locomotives are less than nine years old and most are less than five years
old. This average age indicates that the production stage of this
technology is about 10 years old, but development and prototyping go
back to around 1975.

The motor changes easily to a generator for dynamic braking.

Whenever the input frequency drops below its rotational frequency
(speed) the motor automatically transitions into the generator mode.
There are no power contactors necessary for thi transition. Control of
the motor during dynamic braking is also accomplishedby means of the
inverter. The power produced by the traction motors as generators may
either be used for powering auxiliaries or dissipated in the braking
resistors.

Figure 3 shows that the voltage source (VSI) inverter is a near

standard on the European locomotives. The VSI inverters all use the
Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) technique to control voltage and
frequency to the traction motors. The literature summary indicated that,
for mass transit equipment, the opposite is true for inverter design. Most
existing transit vehicles have controlled rectifiers or choppers operating
with current source (CSJJ inverters [2]. In conversation with the major
European A.C. equipment suppliers it appears that VSI inverters with
GTO thyristors, using a PWM control technique, has generally been
adopted for road locomotives.

The final componentsin Figure 1 are the locomotive and traction

control computers. The purpose for these on-board computers is for
vehicle and train (MU) control, and inverterlmotor control. Vehicle
control refers to all the controls of that particular locomotive, including
control of diesel engine speed, alternator voltage regulation, wheel slip,
protection of electrical components, power supply (for control
components), and diagnostics. The locomotive computer also forms the
vital link in multiple unit (MU) control of more than one locomotive.
The traction computer controls the traction output through the inverter
and motor. The processing speed required for this is great, and thus a
distributed processor concept is used.

A second interesting piece of information included in Figure 3

is the number of motors per inverter. This parameter indicates the
number of axles (motors)connected to a single inverter. The choices are
generally limited to a per axle basis, a truck basis, or all axles. The data
shows that, up to now, on most diesel-electrics with standard thyristor
inverters, all motors are controlled by a single inverter or inverter group.
On allelectric locomotives the motors are controlled on a per truck
basis.

Based on the information gathered in the design assessment, it is

reasonable to conclude that the overall A.C. system design has reached
a plateau. This is based on the equipmentnow being supplied in Europe,
and the newer North American prototype locomotives. If a state-of-the
art (first generation) North American road locomotivewith A.C. traction
motors was built today, the traction equipment would consist of a 3000 4OOO hp diesel engine/alternator connected to a voltage source inverter
(VSI) system, incorporating Gate Turn Off (GTO) thyristors, supplying
three-phase power to axle-hung asynchronous motors. The locomotive
would be equipped with one inverter per truck, and inverter cooling
would be by the evaporative bath method. The motors would be
supported through roller bearings on the axle, driving the wheelset
through oil-lubricated helical reduction gearing. The system would be
designed to allow a maximum wheel diameter mismatch of 0.5 inches
among the wheelsets in a truck.

The advantage in the single inverter control is that no individual

axle or wheelset can slip unless all slip, but the disadvantage is the tight
tolerance that must be maintained in axleto-axle wheel diameter. Again,
in conversation with the North American suppliers, it appears that the
compromisemethod of choice, at least for diesel-electrics, is one inverter
per truck. Thii means that the wheel diameter sensitivity would exist
within a truck and not on the entire locomotive. Thi appears to be a
better design compromisefor North American operation and maintenance
practice than single inverter control. Thii still relains the feature of no
wheelset slip within a truck (2 or 3 axles) unless all slip.

EUROPEAN A.C. TRACTION LOCOMOTIVES

As North American locomotive designs are likely to be dieselelectric, special attention has been focused on the European dieselelectric locomotives. As stated previously, ABB Transportation took
orders for its first diesel-electric A.C. motored locomotivesaround 1976.
These locomotives were delivered, after a 5-year trial period, as a
Henschel - BBC series DE 2500 to the Danish (DSB) and Norwegian
(NSB) State Railways. As shown in Figure 3, both the DSB and NSB
six-axle locomotives weigh 115 metric tonnes, have a maximum speed
of 80 to 90 mph, have a starting tractive effort of 89,000 pounds, and
have 3300 hp EMD 16-645 engines [31.

A.C. traction equipment has been in use in Europe for about

fifteen years. Its use in larger road diesel-electric locomotivesdates back
to the development and testing of the Henschel - BBC DE2500 prototype
in 1970. Numerous improvements and developments with various
components have taken place since that time, and the European
equipment today is generally beyond the prototype stage and in general
production. A.C. traction motors are commonly specified for new
locomotives in Europe today.
Several European companies have been involved in the
development and manufacture of railroad vehicles with A.C. traction or
A.C. traction components. The largest of these are ABB Transportation
(headquarteredin Mannheim, Germany) and SiemensAG (Transportation
SystemsGroup headquartered in Erlangen, Germany). ABB was formed
by merger of Brown Boveri (Switzerland, Germany) and ASEA (Sweden)
in 1988. ABB Transportation received its first commercial orders for
diesel-electric locomotives withA.C. traction in 1976. Even before
1976, ABB had delivered numerous light- and heavy rail passenger
vehicles with A.C. traction. Siemens began construction of A.C.
traction locomotives in 1980. The forerunner to todays A.C. traction
controls for Siemens came with the development of thyristor chopper
controls for a D.C. light rail vehicle in 1973. The first tram car with
thyristor controlled three-phase drive was put into service in Nuremberg
in 1977, while the first inverter controlled A.C. induction motor drive
was installed in a series of light rail vehicles built in 1979.

Both of these series DE 2500 locomotives have six inverters in

parallel, connected to an A.C. bus to which all six traction motors are
co~ectedin parallel. This inverter system was used because the current
capacity of thyristors available at that time were not sufficient to handle
the motor requirements as a single unit, yet the inherent benefit of
wheelslip protection from the parallel motor arrangement was retained.
The DSB locomotives have axle hung motors while the NSB locomotives
have fully suspended drives. These locomotives are basically the closest
in design to a typical North American locomotive, therefore attention is
being given to these units in maintenance and operation data gathering
in the second half of the assessment.
At the end of 1986 the DSB had 37 of the series DE 2500 (DSB
class ME) locomotives in service, averaging 11,000 miles per month,
with some units exceeding 16,000 miles a month. One of the marked
differences between these A.C. traction motored locomotives and DSB
153

12
5

(2)

125

49

175
125

40

62

62

50

13
4

40
60

43
39

16 (45)

56

43

80
80

43
43

50

39

65
2 (80)

0
40

10

375 (30(

43

40

75

40

2
2
3

15 kV, 16.67 Hz

4
-

Hp

Mdc

Hz

= kilovolts, cltenery voltage

= horsepower, mechrnicplpower output

= KiuppMaKM;lschinenbruGmbH

-Hertz,c;ltennryACfrequeacy
= Voltage source Inverter

GTO = Gate Tun Off thyristor equipped

VSI

Priv. = Private

( ) =unitsonorder
Elec. = Electric

D-E
Figure 3

LEGEND:
S.T.E = Stuting tractive effort
EMD = Electro-MotiveDivision,General Motols C q o d o n
kV

4
6
2

45

37 (13)
6 (2)

Totals:

6
-

= Diesel-Electric

European A.C. Traction Locomotives

NORTH AMERICAN ExPER"c EWITH A.C. TRACTION

conventional D.C. equipment @hfD manuhctwed) has beenthe number

of inspections between overhauls, which occur every 500,000 miles.
Whereas the D.C. locomotives require 64 inspections between overhauls,
the locomotives with A.C. traction motors require only 32 inspedions
[31. DSB also found that with the improved dynamic brake performance,
which is effective almost down to standstill, considetably fewer brake
shoes are changed out on these locomotives.

Figure 4 shows a list of the North American A.C. traction

locomtives, either conversions, new built, on order, or in the design
process. This list shows that to date there are very few operating A.C.
locomtives in North America.

Of the units listed in Figure 4, only the CP Rail unit and two
Ah4TRAK locomotive types have seen revenue service. The other
locomotives liited have either not yet been put into service, are research
units, or are under construction. Therefore, these service units will be
discussed in some detail.

The Italian Railways (FS) received 20 diesel-electricsfrom ABB

beginning in 1983 (data shown in Figure 3). These class D145
locomotives are used in mainline work and shunting duty. These units
have achieved over 95% availability after some initial mechanical
problems (unrelated to the A.C. traction system) were worked out, and
FS has obtained 42 additional units. FS has been pleased with the high
tractive effort and load balancing features 131.

In a very recent development, the German Railway OB) began

operating four dieselelectriclocomotives designated as series DE 1024,
provided by Krupp MaK and ABB. These p r o t o w units are large
(3600 hp) six-axle road 1"otives of the European second generation
(GTO technology). Since they have only recently enwed service in
unelectrified territory north of Hamburg, Germany, there is no
maintenance history that is yet available to use in a maintenance
assessment. Figure 3 presents the limited information available for these
locomotives at thii time. Theit design is geared toward universality
withii the European community, for use in high speed or high tractive
effort service.

The first modern North American A.C. traction system

locomotive was acquired by CP Rail, in a joint undertaking with BBC
Canada, Bombardier, and the Canadian Department of Industry, Trade,
and Commerce. CP #4744 was a Bombardier M-640six-axle 4OOO
horsepower diesel-electric locomotive converted to an A.C. traction
motor system with equipmentsupplied by BBC Canada. Thehorsepower
rating was unchanged, but the wheel arrangement was changed from a
COCO to an AlA-AlA. Now the total tractive effort is being
transmitted through four axles in place of six originally. The stated
purpose for thii project was a performance evaluation of A.C. traction
in the North American environment [SI.
154

Metro-North
EMD

F69PHAC

D-E

Bo-Bo

132

Moo

110

40

62,000

VSI

YES

EMD 12-710G3

FL-9

D-E&
Elm.

Bo-AlA

138

2500

90

42

73,000

VSI

YES

EMD 12-71OG3

D-E
D-E

Co-co
Co-co

195
195

3800
3800

80
70

42
42

176,000
176,000

CSI
VSI

NO
YES

1
3

EMD 16-710G3A

SD60MAC

figure 4

EMD 16445F3B

North American A.C. Traction Locomotives

A schematic for the A.C. component layout of CP X4744 is

were used in dynamic brake for the test units to pull against. CP X4744
showed a maximum adhesion of 24% while the S W 2 showed a
maximum value of 18% [4].

shown in Figure 5. As shown, it has four VSI inverters connected in

parallel, feeding an A.C. bus, to which all four traction motors are
c o ~ e c t e d . This arrangement assures equal load sharing among motors
and eliminates any single axle slip. An auxiliary inverter provides 3phase power for equipment blowers. The traditional cab loadmeter
(displayingmotor #2 current in a D.C.locomotive) was replaced with an
applied tractive effort percentage display, and was found quite useful in
assessing over-the-road performance and train handling [4].

The tractive effort testing consisted of operating CP #4744

against three locomotive in dynamic brake on clean dry rail at speeds
ranging from 10 to 60 mph. The dynamic brake tests were carried out
with the same consist, but with the three load locomotives operating in
power against the dynamic braking of CP X4744. The tractive effort and
dynamic brake &rt curves are reproduced in Figure 6 [4].

The four traction motors are 6 pole machines, each capable of

dissipating 657 kW of power. The motors are axle mounted (nose
suspended) in a standard North American configuration. The motor and
suspension Wings are cylindrical roller bearings, oil lubricated on the
drive end and grease lubricated on the nondrive end. The gear ratio for
this locomotive is 79:16, similar in proportion to the typical North
American D.C. locomotive gearing. CP X4744 was equipped with 42
inch diameter wheels during the retrofit to maintain adequate gear case
clearance over the rail.

Normallzed Tractlve or Dyn. B a k e E f f o r t C l b s )

40, OOl

M. rm
20,

rm

.
~

IO, rm
0

Blowers

Pigum 5

CPf4744 Block Diagram

Based on the test tractive effort values, CP Rail predicted an

increase in daily productivity per locomotive by up to 225,000
GThUunitday. The braking effort curve shows high levels of dynamic
brake effort with a flat characteristc over a broad speed range from 5
mph to over U)mph.

Shortly after commissioning tests in 1985,the unit was tested by

CP Rail for its performance characteristics in adhesion, tractive e&rt,
and dynamic brake effort. The adhesion test was made in comparison to
a S W 2 locomotive. Both units were tested in the same test train over
the same track and at the same speeds. 'Ihreeadditional trailing SD4O's
155

returned to service for M e r evaluation.

The revenue Service expetienCe of 8 #4744 has consisted of

general freight Operations in the Windsor - Montreal corridor. In a two
year evaluation period, #4744 logged some 40,000 miles and
d a t e d over 68 million gross ton miles. The unit was rebuilt
following an electrical cabii fire and put back into the Windsor Montreal service in November 1989.

F69 P H - s
In a continuing development of A.C. technology, the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) has recently received two
new A.C. traction system locomotives from EMD with AX. equipment
and technology supplied by Siemens AG of Germany. The FHPHAC
is an EMD sexies 60version of the older F4OPH passenger locomotive,
using the 12cylinder 710 engine and producing 3000 horsepower [s].
Additional details are listed in Figure 4.

A second A.C. conversion was carried out by the National

Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) to their unit RO2, a 3300
horsepower, type F4OPH, 4-axle dieselelectric locomotive originally
built by EMD. The A.C. traction equipment for thii conversion was
supplied by ABB of Germany while the work was carried out by
AMTRAK in their Beech Grove, Indiana, facility. The charactenstics
of the A.C. traction system were designed to match those of the original
F4OPH.

The A.C. traction system, outlined in Figure 8 [5], consists of

three VSI inverters incorporating the latest in Gate Turn Off (GTO)
thyristortechnology, with two invertem for traction and one for head end
power (HEP). The GTO modules are cooled by the evaporation bath
method. In an emergency, a traction inverter can provide head end
power with the locomotive continuing under a reduced level of tractive
effort.

This locomotive has three VSI inverters in parallel feeding a

common A.C. bus to which all four motors are connected in parallel.
This configuration assures no single axle wheel slip (unlessall slip), and
load sharing between axles. The wheel diameter tolerance by design is
0.5 inch maximum between any two axles. AMTRAK RO2 is the first
A.C. traction system built to allow this broad a mismatch. The typical
E & p specification, to which CPM744 was built, is 3 millimeter (0.1
inch). The inverkxs contain conventional high power thyristors with a
commutation circuit. The inverters and power circuits are air cooled.
A schematic for the layout of the AM"RAK 4202 is shown in Figure 7 .

Rgure8

F U I ~ ~ ~Block
O N IDiagram
~
AMTRAK F69PHAC

There are two axle hung traction motors per truck, co~ectedto
a singb traction inverter. The system design allows for a wheel
mismatch of 0.5 inch within a truck, and 1.125 inch between trucks.
The asynchronous motors are four pole machines with a minimum
continuous power rating of 500 kW. They weigh approximately 5200
pounds each and have a maximum speed of 3590 rpm 151. The pinion
is a helical profile gear shrunk onto the motor shaft. The gear ratio is
79:22. Both the pinion bearing and gear share a synthetic oil lubricant.
Nondrive end motor and support bearings are grease lubricated.
The two F69PHAC locomotivescompleted commissioning at the
ITC in Pueblo, Colorado and entered revenue service on AMTRAK's
cross country routes on September 4, 1990. As part of its assessment
project, the AAR provided technical advisory support to EMD in
dynamometer testing of one of the locomotives. Durii p r e l i m i i
track testing at higher speeds, the F69PHAC exhibited.some overheating
of the motor pinion bearing. The bearing was redesigned prior to high
speed qualification testing, and the problem has not reoccurred.

The traction motors on this locomotive are 6 pole induction

machines, each capable of dissipating 500 kW of power. The motors are
frame hung and the power is transmitted through the gearing and cardan
quill drive to the wheels.
The revenue service experience of #202 has consisted of
approximately 70,000 miles operating between Philadelphia and
Harrisburg, PA, and Chicago, IL. One particular problem on RO2 was
overheating of the motor pinion end bearing. This is a cylindrical roller
bearing, l u b r i d by the gearbox oil. This problem was somewhat
surprising in light of the added vibration isolation afforded by the use of
frame mounted motors. This type of power transmission is commonly
used in the European high speed A.C. motored locomotives with much
success. At this time, the exact cause of this problem is not known.
The demand on these bearings is rigorous, resulting from the need to
react the higher North American tractive effort loadiigs and wheelkail
loads, the relatively high rotational speed of the bearings, and emuring
a correct amount of efficient lubrication. A redesigned motor pinion end
bearing arrangement was installed in all four motors, and the unit

JSSUES m

G NORTH AMERICAN IMPLEMEWA'ITON

To be effective, a technology assessment must clearly identify the

issuw or factors that influence the implementation of the technology in
question. In the case of A.C. traction motors, inevitably a comparison
has to be made against the existing technology, this being the serieswound D.C. motor. "bus, to be judged better than the existing system,
the A.C. traction technology must match the better features of the D.C.
system, while surpassing the worst features. Furthermore, this must be
accomplished with no increase in life cycle cost.
156

Six areas of comparison have been identified as key issues.

These are:

*
*
*
*
*

DesignMaturity
Overall Energy Efficiency
Productivity
Reliability (unplanned maintenance)
Maintenance Requirements (planned maintenance)
Economic Impact (life cycle cost)

Throttle
Notch

At this stage of the assessment, the current state-of-the-art A.C.

traction technology is evaluated against the first two key issues. Under
maintenance requirements, the issue of wheel d i a m a mismatch is
addressed with data currently available. Comparisons in the remaining
data
areas is ongoing at this time. The reliability and
gathering, based on the European experience, has been started, but
complete analysis is not expected to be available until next year. After
that, a preliminary life cycle cost model, a key ingredient in the AAR
assessment, can also be completed. As North American operation
experience is gathered the life cycle cost model can be refined.

6
1

Figure9
summary

AMTRAK #202 Traction

System Efficiency

inverters), based on information obtained to date. As more information

is made available, these efficiencies can be updated. But for the present,
this will give an approximate idea of the A.C. system efficiency with a
reasonable comparison to a D.C. system (based on EMD Dash2
technology). The data presented here represents throttle 6-8 type
performance over a reasonable speed range, and not degraded by time or
wear. The overall ef?iciency of the state-of-theartA.C. traction motor
locomotive, defined as the ratio of the wheel/rail tractive power to the
sum of the altetor/reuifier output power, is estimated to be 0.90.
This compares to a D.C. locomotive efficiency of 0.86.

As previously stated, the A.C. system design has reached a

plateau in its development. The development was fairly rapid in the

years leading up to the implementation of the GTO thyristor in the latest

inverter designs. Expeaed changes to the current system design over the
next few years are likely be improvements in the areas of GTO capacity,
traction motor control techniques, pinion bearing design, optimization of
alternator and inverter size or weight, and computer diagnostics. Some
European railways are also considering single motor control.
A major innovation, likely to be in truck design for the freight
locomotive, is a radial or self-steering truck being offered by one North
American manufacturer. The benefits of the radial truck are discussed
fully elsewhere [6,7,8], but are intended to greatly improve the adhesion
realization of the A.C. traction motor system on curves. The
opportunity to evaluate thii innovation comes with the advent of the
SD6OMAC locomotives (see Figure 4), scheduled for commissioning in
late 1991 or early 1992.

Subsystem Efficiency

Overall Enerm Efflciencp

When comparing the overall efficiency of series wound D.C.
traction motor systems to three-phase A.C. asynchronous traction motor
systems, there are two aspects to be considered. First, the direct
conversion of traction alternator output power to power at the rail must
be evaluated. Second, the net change in auxiliary losses, such as cooling
fans, coolant pumps, external commutation circuit losses and
microprocessor system loads, must be included.

Vote:

The fitst opportunity to measure traction system efficiency came

0
2 on the Roll Dynamic Unit (RDU) at the
with the test of AMTRAK a
Transportation Test Center in Pueblo, Colorado. One of the RDU test
objectives was to obtain the overall transmission efficiency of the A.C.
traction equipment, from the D.C. link to horsepower output at the rail
(RDU torquemeter data).

* - b.sed ~n GP40-2technol~g~,

+ - GTO inverter techwlog~

figure 10

O v m l l Efficiency Estimates

The basic efficiency (both mechanical and electrical) of the A.C.

asynchronous motor is a littlehigher than the series wound D.C. motor.
However, the inverter losses directly affect this advantage, and in the
North American application, some of this motor efficiency advantage
may be lost due to a broader wheel diameter mismatch specification.
The inverter has energy losses with no direct equivalent in the D.C.
indicated inverter
system. For example, data from AMTRAK
efficiencies in the % - 98% range. Indications are that the latest GTO
inverters are likely to be in the 98.5 - 99.5% range. If this is achieved,
it not only would reduce the losses but inverter cooling requirements as
well.

Figure 9 lists transmission efficiency versus throttle position for

traction
system obtained from a G P G 2 locomotive during a previous RDU test
[9]. The figure shows that the A.C. system transmission efficiency
generally lies between 85 and 89 percent. The transmission efficiency
of the D.C. system, measured over the same throttle settings and speeds,
also lay between 85 and 89 percent. No detailed comparisons can be
made on the basis of these limited data, except that the overall
transmission efficiencies are similar in magnitude for these operating
conditions.

a02 at 40 mph and 60 mph, and equivalent data for a D.C.

a02

In the mechanical transmission system, the use of roller support

bearings for the A.C. traction motor marginally improves the overall
transmission system efficiency, as does the use of helical reduction
gearing and oil lubrication. However, these improvements could equally
as well be incorporated in the D.C. system at additional cost. For

Figure 10 contains the best estimates of expected component and

overall efficiency for a state-of-the-art A.C. traction system (GTO
157

purposes of the life cycle cost study, crdi will taken for these
improvemeats in the A.C. system on the basis that they will be included

balanced traction motor speed condition.

in the first cost of the locomotive.

The wheel/rail iaerface (bearings and contact patch) losses
should be the unchanged from D.C. to A.C., since no major changes are
anticipated in the bearing design or the wheel protile. If the expected
increase in adhesion utilization with A.C. motors is realized, it can be
argued that this will not increase the energy dissipation at the wheellrail
contad patch since the A.C. motor will normally operate at lower wheel
creep than a series wound D.C. motor for the same tractive effort. The
aominal or average wheel mep for an A.C. mator in service in North
America, including expeded higher tractive efforts and effects of wheel
diameter mismatch, should be about the same as the present D.C. motor.
Finally, the auxiliary load requirements of an A.C. traction
motor locomotive are not at all well defined, and therefore have not been
included at this time. The distribution of auxiliary loads between
mechanical (engine shatt) and electrical (auxiliary generator or inverter)
may be quite different bemeen D.C. and A.C. traction system designs.
Additional cooling is, of course, required for the inverter system and
may be for the traction motors, if more powerful motors are used. The
cooling requirements for a mainline, heavy haul freight locomotive with
A.C. traction motors are, as yet, unknown.

figure 11

Traction Mdor Power vs Whed Diameter Difference

This plot shows that the rail horsepower for axle #2 increased for
increasing wheel diameter (lower rpm) and decreased for decreasing
diameter (higher rpm), which is consistent with expectations. The
remaining motors changed to a lesser amount in the oppositedirection to
compensate for the change in axle R. The slope of the line for axle R
indicates an increase of about 35 horsepower (hp) per 0.1 inch diametral
increase, and a correspodi decrease of about 15 hp per 0.1 inch
diametral increase for each of the unchanged axles. This represents a net
loss in rail horsepower of 10 hp per 0.1 inch diametral increase of a
single axle, in thii test. The reasons for this loss of power are unknown.
Additional data for other speeds and throttle positions showed similar
results. Limited dynamic brake data was also taken, and the horsepower
variations were even greater suggesting that thii might be the critical
case.

L M data has recently become available [lo] regarding

calculated transmission efficiency of a second generation European
dieselelectric A.C. motored locomotive, the DE 1024 (Figure 3). The
transmission efficiency from alternator input to wheel rim output is
calculated at .905for maximum output over a speed range from 25 mph
to 90 mph. "hii figure does m present a direct comparison to the
overall figures presented in Figure 10. However, they do suggest that
the values are in the right ballpark.

In terms of the direct conversion of traction power, all available

information would tend to support the conclusion that the A.C. system
is marginally more efficient than the D.C. system, particularly since the
advent of the GTO-based inverter. However, a complete energy audit
would be necessary to confirm this conclusion. Further work should be
undertaken to refine these estimates, and develop a comparison to a new
generation Series 60Dash 8 D.C. motored locomotive.

The maximum single motor power output in traction was reached

with a larger wheel diameter. The opposite is expected to be true in
dynamic brake. With present locomotive maintenance practice involving
wheelset or motor changeouts, either combination (larger or smaller
wheel mismatch) is bound to occur.
An interesting question that occurs is whether a larger wheel
(higher tractive power output) will wear at an increased rate and,
therefore, be s e l f - c o r r h g in diameter mismatch. No data has been
found to either support or refute this claim, but the question is generally
raised withiin the context of the European 3"
(0.125 inch) mismatch
allowance. The likely North American "standard" of 0.5 inch makes
this question a moot point. Any large wheel diameter variation is not
likely to self-correct because of the amount of wear required, and the
fact that additional wear would only occur in power mode while less
wear could occur in dynamic braking.

The issue of wheel diameter mismatch must be addressed in any

A.C. traction system where two or more motors are connected
electrically to the same inverter. Because of the steep torque - speed
characteristic of the induction motor, variations in motor speed due to
wheel diameter differences will cause tractive effort variations in
proportion among those motors electrically coupled. The motor on an
axle with larger wheel diameters runs slower, and therefore has a higher
torque (and power) output. The remaining motors have proportionally
less output by the amount of increase of the other axle. Total power
output should be unchanged, provided the tractive power is not adhesion
limited. Therefore, in the A.C. system design, a maximum wheel
mismatch is specified and motors are oversized accordingly. For a 0.5
inch mismatch on a 42-inch wheel, the oversuing would be 20% [q.

The whole issue of wheel truing practice can only be broadly

A.C. motored locomotives is
operating in North America to obtain good average data. Complying
with FRA wheel standards can be difficult with a D.C. motored
locomotive today, without the added constraints of a tighter tolerance.
However, the good features of A.C. motors and inverter systems, such
as smaoth torque control and inherent slip control. may have a beneficial
effect on locomotive wheel defect growth and hence the need for frequent
truing.
estimated until a sufficient number of

As stated previously, the AMTRAK #202 locomotive was tested

on the RDU at the l T C in Pueblo, Colorado. The unique speed control

capabilities of the RDU allowed the simulation of wheel diameter

variation by running axles at different speeds. The results of wheel
variations up to +/- 0.5 inch indicated that the inverter/motorswere able
to handle the resulting load variations [ 11.

Im I

Figure 11 shows a plot of individual motor rail horsepower

versus simulated wheel diameter difference from the RDU tests. These
data were taken from a series of NUS,all at throttle position 7 and a
speed of 60 mph. Axle K? was either increased or decreased in speed to
simulate wheel diameter changes in increments of 0.1 inch from +0.5
to 4.5 inches total, whiie the speed of the other axles was kept constant.
It should be noted that the zero diameter difference is represented by the

i l

One conclusion of the assessment to date is that A.C. traction

motor systems hold promise for the improvement of productivity and
reliabilityof motive power. The technology should be implemented soon
on a limited scale in North America to develop additional operating
experience and performance data. The technology has developed and
158

matured to the extent that the trial operation of a limited fleet of

locomotives is a logical next step. Although a maintenance and
reliability assessment, based mainly on the European experience is
ongoing, groundwork should be laid now for a study based on a
reasonable n u m k of locomotiva operating throughout the North
American environment.
European experience with the introductionof A.C. traction motor
technology ten years ago, and the wide range of demands on the North
American freight locomotive fleet suggests that no less than 25
locomotives would be needed for the development of a North American
operating, maintenance, and reliability data base. This fleet experience
would ensure that the requirements of the environment and operations,
including such Wigs as signal and communication compatibility, have
been fully taken into account. The data generated would provide the
basis for a more accueate life cycle cost study. Against this information,
similar data should be collected for a fleet of D.C. motored locomotives
in identical service.
The development and production of such a fleet would also serve
to encourage the domestic manufacture of system components. In
addition, a collective purchase could lower the development burden
always present in prototype costs. The single largest factor affecting the
adoption of Wi technology appears to be that of first cost. Domestic
manufacture and the integration of A.C. hardware into the traditional
North American freight locomotive, is obviously an important
consideration in the implementation of this technology.
Without good comparative data upon which to build a life cycle
cost comparison, it is too early to say whether the A.C. traction motor
technology is a viable alternative to the present D.C. system for mainline
freight locomotives. While there is sufficient promise at the technical
level to justify limited implementation, the relatively high initial capital
cost issue must be addressed. This can be offset in two ways. First, by
the gradual reduction in first cost through domestic manufacture of
components and large order production, and second, by the benefits from
increased reliability and productivity. It is the second factor that the
continuingAAR assessment is intended to address. In the short term, the
necessary informationwill be extrapolatedfrom European experience and
the small number of existing North American prototypes. In the longer
term,however, a pilot fleet study would appear to be justified.

CONCLUSIONS
1.

A.C. traction is not a new or emerging technology, but has been

in production in Europe for 5 - 10 years.

2.

The development has reached a design plateau, the early rapid

development stage of a new technology has past.

3.

The current state-of-the-art in A.C. traction system design is a

VSI inverter, enhanced through the use of GTO thyristors, with
a single inverter for each truck.

4.

A.C. traction systems appear established as the technology of

choice in Europe.

5.

A.C. technology shows good prospects for combating high D.C.

traction motor maintenance costs and failure rates.

6.

Conversion of this technology from a European to a North

American service environment has many outstanding questions
at this time. The few prototypes have shown minor difficulties,
and the higher capital cost is a major issue.

7.

A second level of service prototypes (25 - 30 units) is necessary

to establish answers to the outstanding questions.

159

1.

Anderson, G. B. and Peters, A. J., "RDU Testing of A.C.

Traction Locomotive, AMTRAK 202, " Association of American
Railroads Report No. R-732, Chicago, Illinois, March 1990.

2.

"Reference List - Electrical Equipment for Traction Vehicles

with Three-PhaseDrives," Siemens AG, Edition 1, 1989.

3.

Teich, W., "ABB Three-Phase A.C. Drive Technology for

Railway Traction," Publication No. D VK 1050 88 E, Asea
Brown Boveri Transportation AG, Federal Republic of Gennany,
1988.

4.

Cavanaugh, S. D., et al., "Freight Locomotive A.C. Traction

Technology in North America, " 'Third International Heavy Haul
Railroad Conference, October 1986.

5.

Fischer, J. W., "A.C. Three-phase Power Transmission System

for Amtrak's New Locomotives F69PH," Revised Paper by
Siemens AG Presented at ASME -IEEE Joint Spring Conference,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 1989.

6.

English, G. W., et al;, "Canadian Railway Motive Power

Options and Development Priorities," CIGGT Report No. 87-2,
Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport, July 1987.

7.

English, G. W., "The Technical and Economic Issues of A.C.

Traction in North American Freight Locomotives," ASME IEEE Joint Spring Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, April
1988.

8.

Richter, L.A., and Wagner, R., "Three-Phase Traction Systems

for Heavy Locomotives," The Fourth International Heavy Haul
Railway Conference 1989, Brisbane, September, 1989.

9.

Wilson, N., Rownd, K., Dembosky, M., Washburn, R.,

"Characterization of Locomotive Tractive Effort from the
Electrical Power to the Traction Motors," Report No.
FRA/ORD-86/05.
Available from National Information
Technical Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springlield, VA
22161. March 1984.

10.

Tretow, H., "De 1024: Future-Oriented Diesel Electric

Locomotive," Krupp MaK Maschinenbau GmbH, Kiel, Federal
Republic of Gennany, Paper Presented at Locomotive
Conference, Dahlian, China, 1990.