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 F. Conclusions 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 oject desc pt o 2. Metro Design Criteria for Traction Power System 3 3. Operational Data Operational Data 4. Selected Results of Load Flow Analysis 5 5. Recommendations Recommendations

B. Project Description • The Crenshaw Project is a h h 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 o 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 g guideway with a small section of guideway in street 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 Guideway Type Approximate Length Approximate Length (miles) Aerial Structures and Retain Filled 1.59 At Grade (Exclusive ROW) At-Grade (Exclusive ROW) 2 67 2.67 Depressed (Exclusive ROW) 0.78 U-Sections (Approach to Tunnels) 0.35 C t Cut-and-Cover - Twin Cells d C T i C ll 0 64 0.64 Tunnels - Twin Bores 1.39 Street Running 0.93 A Approximate Project Length i P j L h 8 35 8.35

• The Project baseline includes 6 stations with options 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 Florence / West Fl / W t G Grade d C Center t Florence / La Brea Grade Center Hindry (optional) Grade Side Aviation / Century Aviation / Century Aerial Aerial Center 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 1. TPSS’s sized and located at suitable intervals; 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 Minimum Vehicle Operating Voltage (V dc) h l l ( d ) 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 1. LIGHT RAIL VEHICLE DATA DESCRIPTION INPUT Train Model Type: Siemens P2000 LRV - 3 car yp train Weight per car (AW0) (t) 49.0 (AW2) (t) 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) ( p ) 2 Tractive Effort (Assumed: 80% Efficiency) Attached Maximum Current Based on Appendix B (A/car) 1400 Regeneration Used Regeneration Used No No

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

3. BASELINE SUBSTATION LOCATION The Crenshaw LRT Baseline (full build-out) consists of 10 T Traction Power Substations. i P S b i In the Initial installation, TPSS #4, 7, and 10 will be deferred. Substation Distance between Value Engineering Full Build-out Location TPSS’s (ft) 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 TPSS 04 167+50 167+50 Deferred Installation 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 3. Case 3 – Baseline with 1 or 2-messengers & 1- l h 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

F. CONCLUSIONS The results of the LFA indicate a large amount of copper cross- 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 catenary with 3-parallel feeders t ith 3 ll l f d 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 5. Calgary LRT is currently installing Rigid Rail OCS in the West C l LRT i tl i t lli Ri id R il OCS i th W t Valley Project (Approximately 5000’)