Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project/ jRigid Rail Overhead Contact System

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS

A. IntroductionB. Project DescriptionC. Performance RequirementsD. Operational Data for Load Flow AnalysisE. Load Flow Analysis Results

1. Case 1 – 1 Messenger & 1 Contact Wire2. Case 2 – 1 or 2 Messengers & 1 Contact Wire Plus

Parallel Feeders as Requiredq3. Case 3 – 1 or 2 Messengers & 1 Contact Wire and Rigid

Rail OCS as RequiredF ConclusionsF. Conclusions

A. IntroductionThis 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 descriptione oject desc pt o

2. Metro Design Criteria for Traction Power System

3 Operational Data3. Operational Data

4. Selected Results of Load Flow Analysis

5 Recommendations5. Recommendations

B. Project Descriptionh 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 onear the Crenshaw Station in the new Exposition Line to the existing Metro Greenthe existing Metro Green Line (MGL) where the Crenshaw LRT tracks merge into the MGL in a double-Yinto the MGL in a double Y configuration (half-grand) on the west side of the Aviation/LAX Station of theAviation/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 yrunning where the trains share the unprotected street intersections with road vehicles.

• The Crenshaw LRT guideway is divided as follows:

Guideway Type Approximate LengthGuideway Type Approximate Length (miles)

Aerial Structures and Retain Filled 1.59At Grade (Exclusive ROW) 2 67At-Grade (Exclusive ROW) 2.67Depressed (Exclusive ROW) 0.78U-Sections (Approach to Tunnels) 0.35C t d C T i C ll 0 64Cut-and-Cover - Twin Cells 0.64Tunnels - Twin Bores 1.39Street Running 0.93

A i P j L h 8 35Approximate Project Length 8.35

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

StationStationName Type Platform

Crenshaw / Exposition Below Grade CenterCrenshaw / Martin Luther King Jr. Below Grade CenterCrenshaw / Vernon (optional) Below Grade CenterCrenshaw / Slauson Grade CenterFl / W t G d C tFlorence / West Grade CenterFlorence / La Brea Grade CenterHindry (optional) Grade SideAviation / Century Aerial CenterAviation / Century Aerial Center

C. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

Metro Rail Design Criteria, Section 9.18 – Traction Power and Distribution System key criteria isPower 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 farthestloaded 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% 795Regulation)

Substation Rating (MW) 1.5

D. OPERATIONAL DATA FOR LFA1 LIGHT RAIL VEHICLE DATA

DESCRIPTION INPUTTrain Model Type: Siemens P2000 LRV - 3 car

1. LIGHT RAIL VEHICLE DATA

yptrain

Weight per car (AW0) (t)(AW2) (t)

49.064.1

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

2. TRAIN OPERATION

DESCRIPTION INPUTDESCRIPTION INPUT

Station dwell time (sec) (Aviation Station: 30 seconds)

20)

Speed Limit (mph) – Between Aviation/Century Station and Crenshaw/Exposition Station – Both Directions

55

DirectionsSpeed 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 tesBetween MGL Interface and Aviation/Century Station – Both Directions

2 ½ minutes

Between Aviation/Century Station and 5 minutes/ yCrenshaw/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 EngineeringReduced Build-out

TPSS 01 10+00 TPSS 016200

TPSS 02* 72+00 TPSS 02*5200

TPSS 03* 124+00 TPSS 03*4350

TPSS 04 167+50 Deferred InstallationTPSS 04 167+50 Deferred Installation4700

TPSS 05 214+50 TPSS 055650

TPSS 06 271+00 TPSS 0641504150

TPSS 07 312+50 Deferred Installation5300

TPSS 08 365+50 TPSS 083800

TPSS 09 403+50 TPSS 094150

TPSS 10 445+00 Deferred Installation

E. LOAD FLOW ANALYSIS RESULTSThe 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 h3. Case 3 – Baseline with 1 or 2-messengers & 1-contact wire and Rigid Bar OCS instead of parallel Feeders where RequiredFeeders 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 OCSIt 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 dcatenary 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 overheatingworst 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 t5. Calgary LRT is currently installing Rigid Rail OCS in the West Valley Project (Approximately 5000’)