Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project / j Rigid Rail Overhead - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project / j Rigid Rail Overhead Contact System

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS

• A. Introduction
• B. Project Description
• C. Performance Requirements
• D. Operational Data for Load Flow Analysis
• E. Load Flow Analysis Results

1. Case 1 – 1 Messenger & 1 Contact Wire 2. Case 2 – 1 or 2 Messengers & 1 Contact Wire Plus Parallel Feeders as Required q 3. Case 3 – 1 or 2 Messengers & 1 Contact Wire and Rigid Rail OCS as Required

F Conclusions

• F. Conclusions

• A. Introduction

This presentation is to present a summary of the process to recommend the use of the Rigid Rail OCS for the underground sections of the Crenshaw/LAX LRT Project In the presentation we will show the following:

• 1. Brief Project description

e

• ject desc pt o
• 2. Metro Design Criteria for Traction Power System

3 Operational Data

• 3. Operational Data
• 4. Selected Results of Load Flow Analysis

5 Recommendations

• 5. Recommendations

• B. Project Description

h h

• The Crenshaw Project is a

Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project that extends approximately 8.4 miles.

• The Crenshaw LRT alignment

runs north to south from u s o t to sout

• near the Crenshaw Station in

the new Exposition Line to the existing Metro Green the existing Metro Green Line (MGL) where the Crenshaw LRT tracks merge into the MGL in a double-Y into the MGL in a double Y configuration (half-grand) on the west side of the Aviation/LAX Station of the Aviation/LAX Station of the MGL.

• The Crenshaw LRT will operate mainly in a protected

guideway with a small section of guideway in street g y g y running where the trains share the unprotected street intersections with road vehicles.

• The Crenshaw LRT guideway is divided as follows:

Guideway Type Approximate Length Guideway Type Approximate Length (miles) Aerial Structures and Retain Filled 1.59 At Grade (Exclusive ROW) 2 67 At-Grade (Exclusive ROW) 2.67 Depressed (Exclusive ROW) 0.78 U-Sections (Approach to Tunnels) 0.35 C t d C T i C ll 0 64 Cut-and-Cover - Twin Cells 0.64 Tunnels - Twin Bores 1.39 Street Running 0.93 A i P j L h 8 35 Approximate Project Length 8.35

• The Project baseline includes 6 stations with
• ptions to include 2 more as indicated:

Station Station Name Type Platform Crenshaw / Exposition Below Grade Center Crenshaw / Martin Luther King Jr. Below Grade Center Crenshaw / Vernon (optional) Below Grade Center Crenshaw / Slauson Grade Center Fl / W t G d C t Florence / West Grade Center Florence / La Brea Grade Center Hindry (optional) Grade Side Aviation / Century Aerial Center Aviation / Century Aerial Center

• C. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Metro Rail Design Criteria, Section 9.18 – Traction Power and Distribution System key criteria is Power and Distribution System key criteria is summarized as follows:

1 TPSS’s sized and located at suitable intervals; 1. TPSS s sized and located at suitable intervals; 2. System to provide 750 VDC, range 500 VDC to 950VDC; 3. System to meet service requirements without degradation of service even with any one TPSS out of service; 4. System designed for simultaneous acceleration of two AW2 loaded 3-car trains with one TPSS out of service at farthest loaded 3 car trains with one TPSS out of service, at farthest apart TPSS location:

a) Acceleration close to in-service substation; b) Acceleration close to out-of-service substation

• 5. Negative to ground voltages maintained below 50V

under normal operation and under 70V when one TPSS out of service

• 6. Traction Power Electrical Design Criteria Requirements

DESCRIPTION VOLTAGE Nominal Voltage (V dc) 750 Maximum Voltage for Regeneration (V dc) 950 h l l ( d ) Minimum Vehicle Operating Voltage (V dc) 525 Substation No Load Voltage (V dc) (Assumed: 6% 795 Regulation) Substation Rating (MW) 1.5

• D. OPERATIONAL DATA FOR LFA

1 LIGHT RAIL VEHICLE DATA

DESCRIPTION INPUT Train Model Type: Siemens P2000 LRV - 3 car

• 1. LIGHT RAIL VEHICLE DATA

yp train Weight per car (AW0) (t) (AW2) (t) 49.0 64.1 Train Model Type: P3010 LRV - 3 car train Weight per car (AW3) (t) 61.2 Auxiliary Power (kW/car) 40 Length of 3-Car Train (ft) 270 Maximum Acceleration (mph/s) 3 Maximum Deceleration (mph/s) 2 ( p ) Tractive Effort (Assumed: 80% Efficiency) Attached Maximum Current Based on Appendix B (A/car) 1400 Regeneration Used No Regeneration Used No

• 2. TRAIN OPERATION

DESCRIPTION INPUT DESCRIPTION INPUT

Station dwell time (sec) (Aviation Station: 30 seconds) 20 ) Speed Limit (mph) – Between Aviation/Century Station and Crenshaw/Exposition Station – Both Directions 55 Directions Speed Limit (mph) - Between MGL Interface and Aviation/Century Station – Both Directions 65 Maximum Train Consist 3-Car Train Headways Bet een MGL Interface and A iation/Cent r 2 ½ min tes Between MGL Interface and Aviation/Century Station – Both Directions 2 ½ minutes Between Aviation/Century Station and 5 minutes / y Crenshaw/Exposition Station – Both Directions

The Crenshaw LRT Baseline (full build-out) consists of 10 T i P S b i

• 3. BASELINE SUBSTATION LOCATION

Traction Power Substations. In the Initial installation, TPSS #4, 7, and 10 will be deferred.

Substation Full Build-out Location Distance between TPSS’s (ft) Value Engineering Reduced Build-out TPSS 01 10+00 TPSS 01 6200 TPSS 02* 72+00 TPSS 02* 5200 TPSS 03* 124+00 TPSS 03* 4350 TPSS 04 167+50 Deferred Installation TPSS 04 167+50 Deferred Installation 4700 TPSS 05 214+50 TPSS 05 5650 TPSS 06 271+00 TPSS 06 4150 4150 TPSS 07 312+50 Deferred Installation 5300 TPSS 08 365+50 TPSS 08 3800 TPSS 09 403+50 TPSS 09 4150 TPSS 10 445+00 Deferred Installation

• E. LOAD FLOW ANALYSIS RESULTS

The following summarizes selected results of the Load Flow Analysis (LFA) for the Baseline Configuration:

• 1. Case 1 – Baseline with Standard OCS (1-

messenger & 1-contact wire only)

• 2. Case 2 – Baseline with 1 or 2-messengers & 1-

contact Wire Plus Parallel Feeders where Required l h

• 3. Case 3 – Baseline with 1 or 2-messengers & 1-

contact wire and Rigid Bar OCS instead of parallel Feeders where Required Feeders where Required

CASE 1- Base Case Simulation - 1 Messenger Wire & 1 Contact Wire

CASE 2- Base Case Simulation - 1 or 2 Messenger Wires &1 Contact Wire Plus Parallel Feeders as Required

FIGURE No. 1: CASE 2- Base Case Simulation – NETWORK DIAGRAM

FIGURE No.2: CASE 2 – Cut-and-Cover: Standard OCS with Parallel Feeders Configuration

FIGURE No.3: CASE 2 – Bored Tunnel: Standard OCS with Parallel Feeders Configuration

CASE 3- Base Case Simulation - 1 or 2 Messenger Wires &1 Contact Wire and Rigid BAR OCS Where Indicated

FIGURE No. 4: CASE 3- Base Case Simulation – NETWORK DIAGRAM

FIGURE No.5: CASE 2 – Cut-and-Cover: Rigid OCS Configuration

FIGURE No.6: CASE 2 – Bored Tunnel: RIGID RAIL OCS Configuration

The results of the LFA indicate a large amount of copper cross-

• F. CONCLUSIONS

The results of the LFA indicate a large amount of copper cross- section for the OCS is required to carry the traction power loads based on Metro Criteria and operational requirements; It is concluded that for the tunnel sections the Rigid Bar OCS It is concluded that for the tunnel sections the Rigid Bar OCS will provide benefits as follows:

• 1. It requires less initial capital investment over the simple

t ith 3 ll l f d catenary with 3-parallel feeders

• 2. It requires less maintenance since the OCS is not under

tension – No wire creepage; therefore, no adjustments required

• 3. It provides ample current capacity to carry the loads at the

worst condition without overheating worst condition without overheating

• 4. It is commonly used in Europe and Asia because or

reliability and low maintenance 5 C l LRT i tl i t lli Ri id R il OCS i th W t

• 5. Calgary LRT is currently installing Rigid Rail OCS in the West

Valley Project (Approximately 5000’)