Operation of EMUs in Preservation

[nsl714]

Speaking as an active volunteer at one of the American museums mentioned (the Illinois Railway Museum), I can clarify a few points.

 

The overhead wire on the museum railroad is electrified at 600v DC, which was relatively universal across streetcar, rapid transit, and interurban networks (with some variation of course). The wire is mainly arranged to allow trolley pole operation, but some work is in process to also allow pantograph operation. We have both interurban and rapid transit cars which originally ran off of third rail. We're lucky in the regard that all the interurban cars and most older rapid transit cars were built with provision to operate on overhead wire as well as 3rd rail. Safely operating on the railroad is as simple as making sure the bus connections to the 3rd rail shoes are disconnected so as to not allow accidental energizing of the shoes. I've seen kids and adults alike walk up to a car at the station (low level boarding) and start poking at the 3rd rail gear, so it is a real concern. Also on the property is a complete station from the Chicago L system. We've wanted to put in "cosmetic" 3rd rail, but the track department is refusing to until positive injunction is made that the 3rd rail cannot be accidentally energized (again, see above). Below is a picture of one of the interurbans built for 3rd rail as well as overhead, Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee Railroad 749. Note the 3rd rail shoes at near platform level. These cars have a changeover knife switch in the electrical cabinet to choose overhead or 3rd rail. The lead from the knife switch to 3rd rail has been completely removed, allowing the exterior appearance to remain original.

 

 

 

Some of the newer rapid transit cars from Chicago that we run were never originally fitted with overhead wire appliances. These installations have been made in a discrete and reversible manner which has stood up well in service on at least 5 pairs of cars. Seen here are CTA 2200 series cars from 1969. 

 

 

Also, to answer on the question of tramway wheel profiles, the answer is not as straightforward as "no, they're the same". The stated fact of some street railways being a different gauge to prevent freight operations is true, but whether they be broad, narrow, or standard gauge, street railway wheels ARE in fact a different profile in the US, generally with a narrower tread and shallower flange. This corresponds with street trackage that has a narrower rail and shallower flangeway to make it harder for pedestrians and bicycle tires (and in a previous life, buggy wheels) to fall in and get stuck. When operating on regular plain track, this is generally not a problem. But at standard railroad switches/points, it is more problematic, as the back to back and flanges of the wheels make it easier to pick the switch and derail. Additionally, the narrow treads make them more susceptible to wide gauge defects. Some street railway systems that were more suburban in nature used a compromise profile which works on both street railways and standard railroad trackage (the Milwaukee Electric Railway and Light Company of Milwaukee, WI, and the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit company in Cleveland, OH being notable examples). We have a decent quantity of cars in our collection that are of street railway profile which can't go too far around the property, especially in yards that aren't perfectly maintained, without supervision (these are what we joke to be "wide gauge detectors"). A number of cars have been re-wheeled, often to one of the compromise profiles, to allow operation on our standard railroad trackage.

 

Finally, a note about voltage. There are a few systems in the US that preferred higher voltages, commonly 1500v DC. We and a few other museums have run cars in the past on 600v which are meant for 1500v. Generally the traction motors don't care; the cars just run a bit more sluggish than normal. Particular care does have to be given though to any air compressors, motor-generators, and motor-alternators which will also run sluggish and may not safely keep up with demand. Those cars we run regularly have been adjusted with new armatures in the compressors to run on 600v. 

 

-Zach

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by nsl714
More information and clarification of a point

[rodent279]

Sounds like a way forward. I'd happily ride in a 2BIL or 4COR with a pantograph or trolley pole on the roof. It wouldn't really be any less "authentic" than riding behind an oil-fired steam loco. I think you might run into problems with  the class 71 or 76 (notwithstanding the condition of the 71), I would think they would just draw too much current, even at low speed. But I think the real issue is what was pointed out earlier-you'll fill a train fully a couple of times, then it'll tail off as the novelty wears off. Is it worth the initial expense, and the maintenance?

[nsl714]

Never say never with the 71 or 76. One piece that we have run is this 1500v, 270 ton behemoth, CSS&SB 803.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4iRhJ0dW5E

 

It generally runs without problems at 600v, and to my knowledge hasn't overloaded our substation yet. It of course has been fitted with a 600v compressor, but that's the only modification. 

 

We already had the infrastructure in place when the 3rd rail only cars came along, so the decision to try and run them was a bit easier. Our thought process generally followed that it would serve visitors to the museum better if the cars were seen in their native environment (IE operating) as opposed to being static. It's quite a time warp to ride a 1896 Elevated car, then immediately transfer to a 1970's equivalent.

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by nsl714

[caradoc]

What a magnificent machine ! The USSR's loss was certainly the South Bend, and the Milwaukee Road's, gain. Thanks, 

 

 

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, nsl714 said:

A number of cars have been re-wheeled, often to one of the compromise profiles, to allow operation on our standard railroad trackage.

 

Could you do it the other way round, i.e. re-wheeling rail stock to street railway profile? Or would such stock simply be too heavy for the rail used by trams/trollies?

 

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

Sounds like a way forward. I'd happily ride in a 2BIL or 4COR with a pantograph or trolley pole on the roof.

 

Definitely, as long as the modification was done in a sensitive and reversible way. I still feel that this has some advantages over battery power in terms of originality and the experience of riding on it, but it depends on your point of view. The interesting thing is that the industrial electric locos (Kearsley, York, Spondon etc.) are already designed for a similar system, while the class 71 is already an SR electric with additional overhead line capability and the class 76/77 might be OK with alterations for the different voltage, as with the US 1500V stock. But would they need physical modifications to allow all to run under wires at the same height and would all the various pantograph designs be suitable?

 

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

But I think the real issue is what was pointed out earlier-you'll fill a train fully a couple of times, then it'll tail off as the novelty wears off. Is it worth the initial expense, and the maintenance?

 

I wonder whether the answer is still for it to form part of a larger attraction. Possibly an existing heritage line but equally as part of either a wider 'Museum of Electricity' as suggested earlier or another less rail-specific site like Crich/Beamish/Amberley. (We have museums of rural life so could you have a museum of urban life, complete with electric commuter train?) I also wonder whether being able to have a fairly short circular running line (as seen at some tram and trolleybus museums already iirc) might be useful in terms of allowing people to ride on multiple different units and allowing more than one to operate at a time. Unfortunately the only location that springs to mind with a circular running line is the railway at Radlett quarry and I'm not sure that would ever be available for such a scheme.

[Nearholmer]

A former generating station, with the MGR loop intact, would be perfect, and they are being decommissioned at a fair rate. 

[Northmoor]

4 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Straying OT a little, my beef for a long time with the NRM has been that it's very good at doing the big sexy things that draw the great unwashed in, like things that go chuff, Royal trains etc, but nowhere near as good at the everyday things that often go unnoticed. To be fair to the NRM, that's a criticism that can be made of many preserved railways and museums.

There's a lot that could be done to show and explain electric traction without having a moving example. I'd like to see a transformer & tapchanger from an electric loco, sectioned, with the tapchanger able to move. A couple of rectifiers, mercury arc (obviously without mercury) and silicon, again sectioned, to compare the two. A working mercury arc rectifier in a glass bulb would be a good visual exhibit, behind suitable toughened glass screening in case of explosion. A pantograph that can be raised and lowered could be another visual display.

Electro-mechanical loco controls could also be shown, alongside modern solid state controls. A traction motor could be displayed, sectioned, with its gearbox and final drive coupled to an axle, driven by an out of sight electric motor. A Büchli drive, again sectioned and driven, would be a fascinating exhibit. I think I saw something similar in the Swiss railway museum in Lucerne, but that was nearly 40 years ago.

I recognise these things aren't going to get people queuing along the street, I don't think I'd queue along the street to see an exhibition about suitcases, but I don't doubt it would be interesting once I was in there.

Sometimes the really interesting stuff in a museum is not the crowd pulling stuff you see on posters, but the little bits in odd corners.

 

Edit-OHL tensioning systems, neutral sections etc, and why they are needed, might also make an interesting display.

 

Again, we (ACLG) did collect (and still have) quite a few components like you describe, precisely because we wanted to tell the story.  There was all sorts of criticism of Harry Needle (some really very unpleasant) when 87101 was scrapped - for "destroying an historic and unique loco" - but as well as a lot of common spares, Harry allowed us to retain the unique transformer and control gear, the items which actually made the loco ground-breaking.  87101, livery aside, looked outwardly identical to the rest of the class and I would defy 99% of enthusiasts to actually know what a Thyristor Controller looks like.  One day we'll have the ability to display and explain the story behind them.  I know Graham wanted to do something similar at Coventry and ideally we would have joined forces, but at the time we had only just committed ourselves to Barrow Hill; of course with hindsight we would have been left looking for a new home like the ERC eventually did.

[009 micro modeller]

15 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

A former generating station, with the MGR loop intact, would be perfect, and they are being decommissioned at a fair rate. 

 

And most of the surviving industrial electric locos worked at power stations, so there's another link there. As well as having suitable space to create indoor exhibition spaces.

[Northmoor]

Just now, 009 micro modeller said:

 

And most of the surviving industrial electric locos worked at power stations, so there's another link there. As well as having suitable space to create indoor exhibition spaces.

Any museum that retains a full-size cooling tower for the public to walk underneath, would get my support.

[roythebus1]

On 03/02/2021 at 17:16, phil-b259 said:

 

 

 

Volks Railway is owned by Brighton & Hove City Council - and if anything were to happen ultimately the ORR would come for them because they have a legal responsibility to ensure their asset is being operated and maintained as per the law. Given the nature of such bodies it is also assumed by the ORR they would have plenty of experience in managing contracts relating to electrical items in a public place - be it council buildings or street lighting.

 

Hythe Pier Tramway is owned by the commercial organisation running ferries across Southampton Water. Again its status as a 'proper company' if you will makes the ORR more happy that the oversight arrangements are robust and compliance with the EAW regulations is more easily done.

 

 

Wasn't the Hythe Pier Railway recently given over to a heritage operation as it was uneconomic for the ferry company to keep it going?

 

[nsl714]

30 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Could you do it the other way round, i.e. re-wheeling rail stock to street railway profile? Or would such stock simply be too heavy for the rail used by trams/trollies?

 

Personally I've not heard of such a case. It almost seems counter intuitive if you're mixing tramway and standard rail stock. If you can afford to be mixing the two, you might as well build to the larger clearances. The weight may come into play with some larger EMU's, but I would be more concerned with curve radius and other clearances. Tramways can get pretty tight, and  you'd probably find that your converted stock is captive where it cannot physically fit.  For comparison, the Chicago L has a standard minimum radius of 90 ft, and New York 95 ft. The tightest curve we have at IRM is 50 ft into one end of a barn. Most all streetcars fit there, but it starts getting more restrictive with some of the Interurbans and Rapid Transit cars. What's the minimum radius for say a 2-BIL?

 

On the subject of heritage electric operations abroad and elsewhere, one I discovered recently was the Ferrymead Heritage Park in New Zealand. They have a short operation where they run a few 1500v DC electric locomotives and EMU's, in addition to a tramway and trolley buses, in a larger park setting similar to Beamish.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TclUb4PUhew

 

-Zach

[rodent279]

54 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Could you do it the other way round, i.e. re-wheeling rail stock to street railway profile? Or would such stock simply be too heavy for the rail used by trams/trollies?

 

 

Definitely, as long as the modification was done in a sensitive and reversible way. I still feel that this has some advantages over battery power in terms of originality and the experience of riding on it, but it depends on your point of view. The interesting thing is that the industrial electric locos (Kearsley, York, Spondon etc.) are already designed for a similar system, while the class 71 is already an SR electric with additional overhead line capability and the class 76/77 might be OK with alterations for the different voltage, as with the US 1500V stock. But would they need physical modifications to allow all to run under wires at the same height and would all the various pantograph designs be suitable?

 

 

I wonder whether the answer is still for it to form part of a larger attraction. Possibly an existing heritage line but equally as part of either a wider 'Museum of Electricity' as suggested earlier or another less rail-specific site like Crich/Beamish/Amberley. (We have museums of rural life so could you have a museum of urban life, complete with electric commuter train?) I also wonder whether being able to have a fairly short circular running line (as seen at some tram and trolleybus museums already iirc) might be useful in terms of allowing people to ride on multiple different units and allowing more than one to operate at a time. Unfortunately the only location that springs to mind with a circular running line is the railway at Radlett quarry and I'm not sure that would ever be available for such a scheme.

It occurs to me that we, the Royal we that is, might have to accept a trade-off if we want to see these things run, even if only at low speed on a scaled up Hornby roundy roundy start-up set. They might have to be fitted with non-original pantographs/trolley collectors/bow collectors. If a 2BIL with a pan or trolley arm is ok, then I could settle for a 71/76/77 with a Tyne & Wear Metro or modern tramway style pan. If that's what it takes to see one of these things working, then so be it. Once again, to use a steam analogy, it's like having a steam loco fitted with air brakes, AWS, TPWS etc. Non-original maybe, but if it's the acceptable cost of seeing a certain big green kettle on the mainline, then the same logic should apply.

Edited February 5, 2021 by rodent279

[roythebus1]

Quite a few interesting topics all in one!

 

As some have said battery technology has advanced considerably over the last few years with the Luxembourg tramway system using battery power in the city and tradition OHLE out of town.

 

As for minimum radius of the 2BIL, I'd suggest 2chains, much the same as most main line stock. 2chains =66yards=198'. Very slowly...

 

It's possible for most electrical things to run on much lower voltages. the SNCB?NMBS 3000 volt dc locos work onto the NS system under 1500 volt DC, albeit a bit slower! but then I worked a pair of 501s converted to battery power when I was at KX and they managed to reach some 55mph despite only being able to work in series at about 300 volts dc.

 

A pair of Redhill men have been known to work an MLV from Guildford to Redhill (or the other way) with a utility van it tow. Driven carefully and with good batteries, shutting off down every slight slope increases the range as it does with battery cars on the road. Not many people realise that.

Heritge EMUs lend themselves to loco haulage on the main line as they're usually air braked.

 

The last SR stock with camshaft control were not only the 508s but the 455s as well. One of the 4DD cars lives just up the road from where I live and is currently undergoing a lot of minor restoration work. Have a look as the Southern 4DD group on Facebook for details.

[stewartingram]

8 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Similarly, didn’t Blackpool have a loco to haul coal wagons along the tram tracks from a mainline rail connection? But they didn’t have to adjust the tram gauge to suit like Glasgow did.

Pedantically, it 'hauled' in one direction only. In the other direction it pushed! These were unfitted open coal wagons, and no brake van, delivered to Fleetwood by rail, then onward over the tramway to Thornton Gate sidings (Cleveleys), to be emptied. The journey on the tramway was done between service trams. The return had a flagman in the leading wagon, signalling to the driver. Again between the service trams, it had to negotiate numerous flat crossings of roads; the tramway itself ran alongside the (main) road on a fenced off reservation. Now that operation is something I would love to have seen!

[roythebus1]

Most European railways allow the running of heritage electric stock on main lines. Speaking of trams, the city of Gothenburg has an extensive tramway museum and allows the preserved cars almost unlimited access to the entire network providing they don't delay the normal service cars. I have a friend who has been a driver on the vintage stuff for over 45 years, and another who is fleet engineer for the museum stock. He is employed by GS, Goteborgs Sporwegger/Gothenberg tramways.

 

Anything is possible if there is the political will to do it.

 

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

Wasn't the Hythe Pier Railway recently given over to a heritage operation as it was uneconomic for the ferry company to keep it going?

 

There was something about this reported in Narrow Gauge World a couple of years ago but I’m not absolutely sure who owns it and is actually operating it at this point.

 

1 hour ago, stewartingram said:

delivered to Fleetwood by rail, then onward over the tramway to Thornton Gate

 

But as I recall Glasgow tram tracks had to be 4’ 7 3/4” gauge to allow rail wagons to run on them (on their flanges) so how did Blackpool get away with it using standard gauge?

 

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

A former generating station, with the MGR loop intact, would be perfect, and they are being decommissioned at a fair rate. 

 

Although thinking about this again, aren’t a lot of them actually balloon (return) loops? I’m pretty sure Drax is. Radlett quarry is (oddly) an actual oval with a sort of gated crossover link to the Midland Main Line.

 

 

[Northmoor]

4 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Although thinking about this again, aren’t a lot of them actually balloon (return) loops? I’m pretty sure Drax is. Radlett quarry is (oddly) an actual oval with a sort of gated crossover link to the Midland Main Line.

 

West Burton has a return loop, but is accessible from both directions so forms a complete loop.

[Nearholmer]

19 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Although thinking about this again, aren’t a lot of them actually balloon (return) loops?

 

Yes, but I was betting on the possibility of adding a short chord.

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

It occurs to me that we, the Royal we that is, might have to accept a trade-off if we want to see these things run, even if only at low speed on a scaled up Hornby roundy roundy start-up set. They might have to be fitted with non-original pantographs/trolley collectors/bow collectors. If a 2BIL with a pan or trolley arm is ok, then I could settle for a 71/76/77 with a Tyne & Wear Metro or modern tramway style pan. If that's what it takes to see one of these things working, then so be it. Once again, to use a steam analogy, it's like having a steam loco fitted with air brakes, AWS, TPWS etc. Non-original maybe, but if it's the acceptable cost of seeing a certain big green kettle on the mainline, then the same logic should apply.

 

I agree - where I think it would be going much too far is if you were converting a Woodhead electric to AC (thus completely changing it) purely to allow it to run on modern electrified main lines. In some ways the SR unit fitted with a discreet pantograph to draw power from light overhead electrification is quite appropriate as it’s what was done with the class 71 for the same purpose - to allow it to operate in environments where high speeds were not required but third rail would have been unsafe. As long as the modification is subtle and reversible.

 

2 hours ago, nsl714 said:

On the subject of heritage electric operations abroad and elsewhere, one I discovered recently was the Ferrymead Heritage Park in New Zealand. They have a short operation where they run a few 1500v DC electric locomotives and EMU's, in addition to a tramway and trolley buses, in a larger park setting similar to Beamish.

 

 

And I think the tramway at this site came first, so they already had some experience with electric operation when the railway was electrified (I think using a reasonably large quantity of equipment from a decommissioned electric line). Perhaps if more 1500V DC stock had been preserved there would now be a British electric heritage railway; overhead DC seems to be the safest system for a heritage line and unlike SR/Merseyside third rail and AC overhead, overhead DC stuff can’t really run on the main line. Although now that I think about it, wasn’t there an attempt at one point to set up a preserved line with suitable electrification to run a Woodhead loco?

[rodent279]

9 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

I agree - where I think it would be going much too far is if you were converting a Woodhead electric to AC (thus completely changing it) purely to allow it to run on modern electrified main lines. In some ways the SR unit fitted with a discreet pantograph to draw power from light overhead electrification is quite appropriate as it’s what was done with the class 71 for the same purpose - to allow it to operate in environments where high speeds were not required but third rail would have been unsafe. As long as the modification is subtle and reversible.

 

 

And I think the tramway at this site came first, so they already had some experience with electric operation when the railway was electrified (I think using a reasonably large quantity of equipment from a decommissioned electric line). Perhaps if more 1500V DC stock had been preserved there would now be a British electric heritage railway; overhead DC seems to be the safest system for a heritage line and unlike SR/Merseyside third rail and AC overhead, overhead DC stuff can’t really run on the main line. Although now that I think about it, wasn’t there an attempt at one point to set up a preserved line with suitable electrification to run a Woodhead loco?

I did suggest something similar some way back, but that was not so much converting a DC loco into an AC loco, as attaching a mobile DC substation in the form of an AC locomotive with DC bus lines into the DC loco. If you think about it, a DC loco works off DC that is a transformed and rectified AC supply from the grid. So you could view an EM1, EM2, 71 etc as AC locos, with the transformer and rectifier located in a substation.

The idea has precedent, because that's pretty much exactly what happened when the class 307 & 306's were converted from 1500v DC-a 25kV pantograph,  transformer and rectifier were mounted in one car, and bus lines fed the original DC control gear and motors in the driving motor car, the original 1500v DC pan on the driving motor being removed. Likewise the class 313's-the centre car contains the pantograph, transformer & rectifier, the DC is fed to the control gear and traction motors in the driving motor cars.

We're in the realms of fantasy really though, because the chances of such a lash up between an AC electric loco and a DC electric loco getting a safety case and approval to run on the mainline would be vanishingly small, even if there was the money available.

 

Edit:- Class 307 were built as 1500v DC, not class 302.

Edited February 6, 2021 by rodent279

[DY444]

8 hours ago, rodent279 said:

We're in the realms of fantasy really though, because the chances of such a lash up between an AC electric loco and a DC electric loco getting a safety case and approval to run on the mainline would be vanishingly small, even if there was the money available.

 

Although to my mind it's not that much different in principle to what happened when they were testing Eurostar bogies with a modified class 33 collecting traction current and passing it by cable to a class 73.   So there is a sort of precedent albeit not one that fell under the jurisdiction of the low benefit high cost mantra of the ORR.

[rodent279]

No, but another barrier to such an operation would be the requirement to duplicate the alarm & fault warning systems of the AC loco in the cab of the DC loco.

Plus the pantograph/transformer car of an emu such as class 313/4/5 is normally coupled permanently to its driving motor car. A lash-up between an AC & a DC loco would need separating at a terminus in order to run round.

[rodent279]

One EMU that I would like to see on the mainline again is 306017. I suspect it's unlikely it will ever run under it's own power again, as despite being owned by the NRM, it was shamefully neglected for some years. I don't know whether it ever had TPWS etc fitted, but even if not possible to run under it's own power, it could be dragged by a preserved diesel.

[009 micro modeller]

30 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

One EMU that I would like to see on the mainline again is 306017. I suspect it's unlikely it will ever run under it's own power again, as despite being owned by the NRM, it was shamefully neglected for some years. I don't know whether it ever had TPWS etc fitted, but even if not possible to run under it's own power, it could be dragged by a preserved diesel.

 

Wasn’t there a plan at one point for it to be loco-hauled by the EARM up and down the (unelectrified) Sudbury branch?

[Johann Marsbar]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

One EMU that I would like to see on the mainline again is 306017. I suspect it's unlikely it will ever run under it's own power again, as despite being owned by the NRM, it was shamefully neglected for some years. I don't know whether it ever had TPWS etc fitted, but even if not possible to run under it's own power, it could be dragged by a preserved diesel.

 

Shildon last March....

 

 

One car was either inside the building awaiting some restoration work, or it was sheeted over at the other end of the place waiting for a space inside - I can't remember which.