Re: [OT?] PCC controller video
  Tony Galloway

Power economy was not a concern when the PCC was designed, as electricity was going to be plentiful and cheap in “The Future”.

The 1930s in the US was a time of expanding the grid through rural areas and building big hydro and thermal power projects to feed it, and the capacity of the generators ran ahead of demand.

Post WW2 there was a series of proposals by the northwestern hydro-electric generators in particular to railroads in their region to electrify. There was already the Milwaukee Road and Great Northern electrifications and part of these schemes was the power utilities would build and maintain catenary and substations, and charge the railroad for what they used, minus power recovered from regenerative braking.

Nothing came of this as dieselisation seemed easier at the time. The idea of power utilities providing electrical infrastructure to railroads was floated again in the 70s during the oil crisis, with the Union Pacific and Santa Fe seriously considering the idea, but again, nothing came of it. The 25/50kv 60hz system proposed was adopted by the Black Mesa & Lake Powell coal railway in Arizona and on the Tumbler Ridge branch of British Columbia Railway.

The only serious North American attempt at 25kv mainline electrification was the ill-fated 370km Ferrocarilles Nacionales de Mexico project between Mexico City and Queretaro. It didn’t last as the electrified section was too short to justify the motive power change (it was supposed to extend to Guadalajara) and the catenary was hung too low to clear tri-deck auto racks and double stack containers. After the NAFTA driven privatisation in the 90s the catenary was removed outside the Mexico City federal district, where commuter trains use it.

Tony G

> On 10 Aug 2017, at 10:22 am, Matthew Geiermatthew@... [TramsDownUnder] TramsDownUnder@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> On 10/08/17 09:22, Tony Gallowayarg@... mailto:arg@aapt.net.au [TramsDownUnder] wrote:

> >

> >

> > Transit Research Corporation was wound up in 1959, Dudley.

> >

> > I may be wrong, but I thought VAMBAC was developed by Crompton

> > Parkinson after WW2, and the issue with the Blackpool cars was

> > excessive power consumption not reliability. One of the differences in

> > specification from the ERPCC/TRC patents was the use of 45hp, rather

> > than 55hp motors. I also believe one of the anti PCC arguments in both

> > Melbourne and Sydney was the power consumption issue as well.

> >

> Based on specifications, a Sydney Variotram including air-conditioning

> has lower peak power draw than a standard PCC car !

>

> Power economy was NOT a PCC feature.

>

>

>