Re: [OT?] PCC controller video
  Mick Duncan

Gday Tony

Your right, Alexandra probably would have kept the 300V motors in series
pairs and then you would have series,series parallel control

Not hard as the K35 can be used as a 2 motor comtroller and each pair would be treated as one motor as far as the controller wiring is concerned

I guess the arabs wouldnt care about the excessive current in the half of
the reverse barrel in use.

No dynamic brakes.

Cheers, Mick


On 10/08/2017 10:14 AM, Tony Gallowayarg@... [TramsDownUnder] wrote:
>

>

>

>> On 10 Aug 2017, at 9:57 am, Richard Youltressteleg@... mailto:tressteleg@yahoo.com.au [TramsDownUnder] TramsDownUnder@... mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>>

>>

>> As for the definition, would a car still be considered a PCC if controlled by a K35 type of controller? This is not fantasy. In 1975 in Alexandria Egypt at least some of their (?ex Washington) PCCs had been downgraded in such a manner.

>>

>

> It would be interesting to see how the 300v motors were wired to the K35 - series would have required all motors in series, while parallel would be series-parallel. Normally it’s the other way around, with series meaning series-parallel and parallel meaning just that.

>

> 300v motors were used to increase the range of dynamic braking. If the original wiring on these cars was junked to the extent that a K35 or similar controller could be used they could have replaced the motors with 600v items, and had a conventional K35 traction circuit, with air brakes to do the stopping. I’m pretty sure Washington PCCs were air-electric.

>

> Egypt - the Innovation Nation……

>

> Tony G

>

>

>