Search This Blog

Thursday, April 30, 2020

High Impedance

An often overlooked issue with railroad (or transit) electrification is the conflicting requirement to use the rails for traction return current and to divide the truck up into electrically isolated segments for the purposes of track circuit signaling. Installing insulated joints between substations would either cause the electric vehicle to not go or would force the return current to find other transmission paths, most of which are usually not intended to see electrical current flow and might not be too happy about it either.

The right hand rail is insulated at the track circuit block boundary, the left is not.

Your first option is to use the one rail or 1+1 system.  Here you have one rail with insulated joints creating track circuit blocks and the other rail acting as a common ground without insulated joints.  One downside is that only the insulated rail gets broken rail protection.  There are probably other downsides as well as this method was only used on some of the oldest electrified transit systems such as the NYC Subway.  Another option is to have a 4th rail system like the London Underground where traction return current uses a dedicated 4th rail instead of the running rails.  The better option is to use a device called an impedance bond to have both isolated track circuit blocks and a traction return path via the rails.



Here we see a Union Switch and Signal model impedance bond, patented in 1922.  I am not sure if there were any earlier models of bond or if this was used on the 1915-1918 PRR and New Haven 25hz electrification projects before the patent was granted, but it would have been available for the major waves of electrification that took place in the 1920's and 30's.  An impedance bond is a type of isolation transformer where traction return current can pass with low impedance (impedance is the AC version of resistance), while track circuit current faces high impedance and thus follows the path of least resistance through the track circuit logic. The necessary trick to making this work is to have track circuit current at a different frequency than the traction return current.  For example DC traction current with an AC track circuit or one frequency of AC return current with another frequency of AC track circuit. 


In the above diagram from a Japanese Wikipedia page we can see a slightly more elaborate setup for an impedance bond.  The two coils connected at the center tap are what constitute the impedance bond.  The secondary windings capture the AC track circuit current via the magic of induction and feed the signal logic.  More typically the bond omits this secondary winding and the signal logic is fed directly from the rails.  Remember this is a super high level summary so for more detailed technical information please consult Google or your reference library.


Here we see two of the 1922 patent US&S bonds and their modern Siemens replacements for use on Amtrak's NEC.  Amtrak, like the PRR before it, uses 25hz traction power and 91.66hz coded AC track circuits.  Normally the coded track circuits would operate at 100hz, but as a multiple of 25, return current harmonics could be detected as track circuit current, which is bad.  91.66hz is close enough to 100hz to be cross compatible with 100hz electronics.


The spec plate on the new bonds show the Amp rating for traction return current and the impedance values for 100hz current (400 ohms) and 60hz current (2.4 ohms).  While 25hz isn't listed I am assuming that the value would be in an acceptable range. A DC traction system sees much higher amp loads than an AC system and therefore the bonds must be much larger with thicker windings to handle it.  Systems with both AC and DC, like Penn Station, would use DC rated bonds.



 Of course the story doesn't stop there.  In the late 1960's the rail signaling industry introduced the concept of jointless track circuits for use in transit applications.  These make use of AC frequencies in the "audio" range of 1-5 kHz.  These higher frequencies attenuate after a much shorter distance and using a mix of frequencies one can have a given track circuit receiver able to hear the signal from a single specific transmitter.  Still there is the issue of the pesky traction return current that needs to move between the rails, to ground and NOT into the signaling logic.  The solution was the Wee-Zee bond (trademark of GRS) that creates this path to ground while preventing the track circuit signal passing between the two rails.


In this close up of a US&S "Minibond" on the Chicago El, we can see the the listed transmit-receive frequency pairs, the cab signal code frequency and the DC power rating (3000amps at 0.00003 ohm).


Now if you like Technology Connections, here's an interesting one for you that revolves around the necessity of impedance bonds.  Europe is currently under the thrall of axle counters for train detection as opposed to track circuits.  Why would the normally safety conscious Europe in interested in a train detection system that doesn't positively detect the presence of a train (or flood or broken rail)?  Because the Central European 16.66Hz electrification club, which includes Germany, Austria, Switzerland and a few others, electrified their rail systems were those systems were still operated using non-track circuited manual block signaling.  When upgrading to automatic block signaling, installing track circuits would require installation of impedance bonds and related electronics.  Therefore an alternative, axle counters, was sought out and adopted.

Likewise, the NYC Subway is moving to Communications Based Train Control instead of the audio frequency track circuits as their use of the one rail system would require the installation of who knows how many Wee-Zee bonds.  Just goes to show how technical decisions can be highly path dependent.  Keep that in mind the next time you have trouble figuring our the logic behind that might not make complete sense. 

Saturday, April 25, 2020

Amtrak Dual Equips Part of NEC for I-ETMS PTC System

Effective April 23rd, 2020, Amtrak is activating I-ETMS (Interoperable Electronic Train Management System) on its Philadelphia to Washington route between PENN and the end of CTEC territory at CP-AVENUE and on the Harrisburg Line between FRAZER and STATE.  This is the PTC system generally used outside of the Northeast commuter zone by the Class 1's and other railroads and on Amtrak territory I-ETMS will be used by NS freights and MARC commuter trains.  The bulletin order with the relevant information can be found here.

Here are some important takeaways regarding this bulletin order.
  1.  I-ETMS relies on the cab signal system to enforce train separation as a CSS failure will constitute an I-ETMS failure.  This was generally suspected to be the case due to the lack of I-ETMS antennas at intermediate signal locations in cab signal territory both on NS and on Amtrak. 
    "Trains operating with I-ETMS that experience a cab signal, ATC, Speed Control or LSL failure enroute must consider I-ETMS to be inoperative and proceed in accordance with SI 592-S2."
  2.  Some MARC Locomotives were ACSES equipped for NEC operation, but as of 2018 MARC was still ACSES exempt.  MARC now appears to be switching over to I-ETMS, but I am unsure if it is because the locomotives can only support one PTC system or simply want to simplify procedures as the Camden and Brunswick lines as CSX will use I-ETMS.

    ACSES receiver on a MARC MP36 locomotive. 
     
  3.  I am still working to get the instructions for the I-ETMS on board apparatus, but the I-ETMS special instructions make reference to time consuming software downloads, manual entry of consist weight and manual selection of track before entry into I-ETMS territory. All of this manual entry through what is probably a fairly simplistic interface device is likely what led to METRA's complaints about PTC setup times of 10-15 minutes necessitating schedule changes.  ACSES does not require complex setup procedures due to the use of transponders.
  4. The rules state that the Stop release becomes available after 300 seconds (5 minutes) stopped within 1500 feet of a stop signal, but I was told that might be a typo as 30 seconds would be a more reasonable amount of time.
  5. It will be interesting to see how the two systems stack up regarding braking curves and calculated enforcement points.
  6. SEPTA's claims that ACSES was incompatible with I-ETMS to justify separating the West Trenton branch from the CSX Trenton line were not entirely truthful.  The 2015/16 project cost a good deal of money and reduced capacity on the West Trenton Line with SEPTA claiming it was out of their hands.  As I pointed out at the time there was nothing that would technically prevent deploying both systems on the same section of track and Amtrak has proven this assertion without much fuss or fanfare. 
Anyway, that's all I have.  MARC riders, keep your eyes open to see how I-ETMS effects performance.  I'll follow up and try to get the answers to the lingering questions.


Tuesday, April 14, 2020

Photo Archive is Back (For Now)

I just wanted everyone to know that I used some of my corona virus time to get the remaining years of my photos archive back up where it can be accessed in an convenient manner.  For those of you who don't know in 2017 I lost both of my conventional web hosts and was forced to fall back on Google for my photos and nothing for my other content.  In 2019 Eric at RedOverYellow.Com was generous enough to provide some generic file storage and like I just managed to finish all of the re-uploading.

But wait, there's more!  I am also in the process of fixing the dead links in this blog and have so far gotten up through 2014 (which is pretty good since the newer posts don't suffer from as many broken links ;-) ).  Specifically this includes a lot of PDF documentation like employee timetables, builtin orders and rulebooks. 

Please take note that due to some limitations on the hosting I have to eliminate most of the photo specific HTML landing pages.  Also, due to a variety of reasons such as age or just me loosing the data, that some links simply cannot be restored.  In these cases I will leave the links dead on the page just so people are aware that the information used to exist and now no longer does.

I am still looking for additional mirrors, especially from museums or long running institutions.  I have leaned the hard way that the internet does not last forever, so the best I can do is try and find a home for my archive that can stand the test of time.

Tuesday, April 7, 2020

Surviving BNSF Marceline Sub Searchlights Retired

While this probably isn't breaking news I am still going to report the fact that the last two intact ATSF era signal bridges on the Marceline Sub in eastern Missouri were de-signaled in late 2019, some 6 years after the rest of the route was re-signaled in the summer of 2013.  The two-track, weathering steel I-beam construction signal bridges at mileposts 243 and 241 not only remained standing, but also retained their US&S H-5 searchlights.

MP 243 signal in 2013

MP 241 signal in 2013
These signals were located between Argyle and Ortho and also retained their prefab concrete relay huts.  As you can see from the above photos, PTC antennas had been erected and no replacement signals were on hand.  However, seeing that the signal heads on the bridge at MP 238 had been turned in place, I just assumed that the MP 241 and MP 243  signals would likely be replaced or removed in short order.  The replacement signals at MP 243 and MP 241 use 1 mast and one cabinet mounted half mast.  The ATSF structures were still standing as of April 2020 and as far as i am aware the few color light equipped ATSF signal bridges are also still in place.  My 2013 survey of this line segment can be found here.