Repairing, replacing or refurbishing electrical traction equipment?

[hwl]

What's maybe worth considering is that even if the remaining MetCam Networkers are taken out of service this year, I think they've actually lasted longer than they could have done were certain things surrounding franchise management done differently: from 2014-2021 Southeastern kept receiving several short term contract extensions that effectively made a new fleet investment too risky. Had an extension much greater than 4 years been awarded in 2014, or even in 2018, all the Networkers could have been scrapped by now. One only needs to look at how their 365 cousins were handled, how SWR didn't want (or couldn't use due to contract terms) the very new 707s and perhaps some other examples around the country, to see that the climate at the time favoured ordering new fleets even where existing ones were not life expired.

Then of course, as I mentioned upthread, the MetCams have retained their original traction motors for 30 years; the Hitachi motors in the BREL units are only half as old, and even if they go on another 5 years say, will still not have been used as long numerically.

mods note - split from this thread

The BREL units still have the original traction motors, it was the traction inverters that were replaced.

 

[branny_rail465]

They'll have to do 2 separate tours if the MetCam type is withdrawn distinctly earlier than the re-tractioned BREL ones, so they cover both types off when they each leave. It's worth remembering that while the MetCams look set to leave first, they did hold their original traction motors all along; the original BRELs were consigned to history after 15 years or so (although Armstrong Powerhouse brought it back to life on Train Simulator).

There used to be old footage circulating on a you tube channel when they were creating the sounds for the BRUSH TMI traction sounds. Or thyristors. But for some reason the videos have all been removed. Weird that.

I find it odd that met cams are removed first. But they are the superior unit function-wise internally they are cleaner. They are faster to accelerate to max speed than BREL/ABB types despite not being upgraded. Weird descision to want to replace them first.

The BREL units still have the original traction motors, it was the traction inverters that were replaced.

That is correct. People often confuse that info. The old remnants of the BRUSH motor sounds can still be heard audiably. So that concludes for sure that they retained some compoments. Its likely the motors were modified to accomidate the frequencies generated by the new inverter module.

This is actually the same thing happening to 92 tube stocks right now it was explained in a video. The motors are taken out and made new or upgraded in this case. Heres a link to a video on how they are refitting the units

 

[hwl]

Its likely the motors were modified to accommodate the frequencies generated by the new inverter module.

No.

You are confusing two frequencies here
a) The frequency of AC supplied to the motors
b) Switching frequency of the GTO/IGBT/(or MOSFET with SiC)

a) doesn't change as the maximum motor speed, gearing and wheel diameter hasn't changed this will probably be in range 0-75Hz. For three phase drive AC traction motors the max frequency is a minimum of ~5% greater than the relevant motor rotational speed adjust for poles for the maximum case this will be at least at 10% greater than the max train speed (e.g. 75=7.5=82.5mph).
e.g. Nominal synchronous motor RPM = (120 * supply frequency) / Number of motor poles per phase. In reality as they are 4 pole asynchronous motors the supply frequency will be 4-5% higher than the nominal when accelerating and and 4-5% lower when braking.

b) IGBT has significantly higher switching speed / frequency / ramp rate (x2.5 the best GTO frequency in most cases) than GTO allowing significantly smoother AC waveforms to be generated, resulting in fewer EMC issues and ultimately higher efficiency (including significantly lower cooling electronics requirements)

The characteristic sound is function of a) and b)

This is actually the same thing happening to 92 tube stocks right now it was explained in a video. The motors are taken out and made new or upgraded in this case. Heres a link to a video on how they are refitting the units

No it is not.
The 1992 Tube stock originally (and most still do at this stage) have DC motors (the last tube stock to have) with DC chopper control using GTO for the switching not to produce pseudo sine waves at varying frequencies.

The "same" thing would be converting the Alstom 1996 Jubilee Tube stock from 3 phase GTO to IGBT - this wouldn't need the motors changing in this case either. Incidentally the 1996 Stock uses the same inverter as the GEC-Alstom Networkers but with 4 motors per inverter instead of 2 motors per inverters on the networkers. Valuable spare parts...

The Alstom 1995 North line stock was the first use of IGBT.

That video is irrelevant in this case

 

[branny_rail465]

No.

You are confusing two frequencies here
a) The frequency of AC supplied to the motors
b) Switching frequency of the GTO/IGBT/(or MOSFET with SiC)

a) doesn't change as the maximum motor speed, gearing and wheel diameter hasn't changed this will probably be in range 0-75Hz. For three phase drive AC traction motors the max frequency is a minimum of ~5% greater than the relevant motor rotational speed adjust for poles for the maximum case this will be at least at 10% greater than the max train speed (e.g. 75=7.5=82.5mph).
e.g. Nominal synchronous motor RPM = (120 * supply frequency) / Number of motor poles per phase. In reality as they are 4 pole asynchronous motors the supply frequency will be 4-5% higher than the nominal when accelerating and and 4-5% lower when braking.

b) IGBT has significantly higher switching speed / frequency / ramp rate (x2.5 the best GTO frequency in most cases) than GTO allowing significantly smoother AC waveforms to be generated, resulting in fewer EMC issues and ultimately higher efficiency (including significantly lower cooling electronics requirements)

The characteristic sound is function of a) and b)


No it is not.
The 1992 Tube stock originally (and most still do at this stage) have DC motors (the last tube stock to have) with DC chopper control using GTO for the switching not to produce pseudo sine waves at varying frequencies.

The "same" thing would be converting the Alstom 1996 Jubilee Tube stock from 3 phase GTO to IGBT - this wouldn't need the motors changing in this case either. Incidentally the 1996 Stock uses the same inverter as the GEC-Alstom Networkers but with 4 motors per inverter instead of 2 motors per inverters on the networkers. Valuable spare parts...

The Alstom 1995 North line stock was the first use of IGBT.

That video is irrelevant in this case

Im way to laymens for that detailed of an explanation but i tried to pick out what i could understand. So the video isnt telling the truth? The man said that they are "fixing or upgrading " the motors. Not nesseccerilly scrapping them entirely? As the central line stock are "recieving AC motors" which means subsequently using IGBT inverters too no? So wouldnt what im saying with regards to upgrading traction equipment be true or is it a misunderstood set of information with regards to the 92 stock?

The BREL units still have the original traction motors, it was the traction inverters that were replaced.

I think what i was initially trying to say is that they do sound very similar regardless of the audiable differences produced by the IGBT modules or whatever their called. (Because at this point many peopke reffer to them as different things, igbt inverters/modules, its a little confusing as a non emgineer lol)

 

[hwl]

Im way to laymens for that detailed of an explanation but i tried to pick out what i could understand. So the video isnt telling the truth? The man said that they are "fixing or upgrading " the motors. Not nesseccerilly scrapping them entirely? As the central line stock are "recieving AC motors" which means subsequently using IGBT inverters too no? So wouldnt what im saying with regards to upgrading traction equipment be true or is it a misunderstood set of information with regards to the 92 stock?


I think what i was initially trying to say is that they do sound very similar regardless of the audiable differences produced by the IGBT modules or whatever their called. (Because at this point many peopke reffer to them as different things, igbt inverters/modules, its a little confusing as a non emgineer lol)

The 1992 tube stock is different to what was done to the BREL / Brush 465/0 & 1, neither of which is shown in the video.

The video mentions the retractionings of the 1992 stock but doesn't actually show it, the main (only) visual topic is keeping the existing traction equipment working. What is shown in the video is knackered existing DC traction motors (with commutator flash over damage) being taken off to be sent away for rebuild, and refurbished existing DC traction motors being refitted - this is what LU and 3rd rail EMU operators have been doing for over a century (same applies to the DC traction motors on older Diesel Electric locomotives).
Nothing about the new traction system is visually shown in the video.
One of the advantage of the three phase asynchronous "squirrel cage" motors is they don't have commutators so are much less prone to catastrophic failure (they are also more efficient, smaller lighter). You can't show commutator repairs on motors that don't have commutators!
In the medium term those motors in the video will either end up as Waterloo and City stock spare parts float or scrap.

I terms of "3 phase retractioning" of rolling stock there are two different sets of circumstances that have occurred in the UK:

a) On rolling stock already with three phase AC traction motors, the replacement of older (GTO) inverters with new (IGBT inverters) [cheaper, quicker, easier]:

• BREL / Brush 465/0 & 1s - Original ABB GTO inverters replaced with Hitachi ones (Hitachi wanted to learn the nuance of electrical interference etc in the UK before doing new build with the 395s), motors not replaced
• Most Eurotunnel shuttle locomotives (91xx) - Original ABB GTO inverters replaced with new ABB IGBT ones (retrofit solution developed for Eurotunnel and CFF who had locos using the same GTO inverters)
• GBRf Class 92 - Original ABB GTO inverters replaced with new ABB IGBT ones (used the same original inverters as Eurotunnel 90xx) using the "off the shelf" solution ABB had developed for Eurotunnel and CFF.

b) replacement of the entire traction electrical system (DC traction motors or single phase non variable frequency AC and downstream of the transformer in the OHLE case*) - new motors, initial fitment of (IGBT) inverters and completely new control systems including WSP [more expensive, more involved and time consuming].

• SWT/SWR 455s,
• SWR 442 (never entered service post rebuild)
• Anglia "Renatus" 321s*
• 1992 tube stock
• SWR 484s

Outside of TfL most of the rest of the industry uses Associated Rewinds in Dublin for motor repair and they have a few good animations on the website. https://associatedrewinds.com/index.html
(Mostly locomotive motors (much bigger) shown in the photos e.g. Class 66, 59, HST power car, 70, Traxx)

 

[Wolfie]

The 1992 tube stock is different to what was done to the BREL / Brush 465/0 & 1, neither of which is shown in the video.

The video mentions the retractionings of the 1992 stock but doesn't actually show it, the main (only) visual topic is keeping the existing traction equipment working. What is shown in the video is knackered existing DC traction motors (with commutator flash over damage) being taken off to be sent away for rebuild, and refurbished existing DC traction motors being refitted - this is what LU and 3rd rail EMU operators have been doing for over a century (same applies to the DC traction motors on older Diesel Electric locomotives).
Nothing about the new traction system is visually shown in the video.
One of the advantage of the three phase asynchronous "squirrel cage" motors is they don't have commutators so are much less prone to catastrophic failure (they are also more efficient, smaller lighter). You can't show commutator repairs on motors that don't have commutators!

I terms of "3 phase retractioning" of rolling stock there are two different sets of circumstances that have occurred in the UK:

a) On rolling stock already with three phase AC traction motors, the replacement of older (GTO) inverters with new (IGBT inverters) [cheaper quicker easier]:

• BREL / Brush 465/0 & 1s - Original ABB GTO inverters replaced with Hitachi ones (Hitachi wanted to learn the nuance of electrical interference etc in the UK before doing new build with the 395s), motors not replaced
• Most Eurotunnel shuttle locomotives (91xx) - Original ABB GTO inverters replaced with new ABB IGBT ones (retrofit solution developed for Eurotunnel and CFF who had locos using the same GTO inverters)
• GBRf Class 92 - Original ABB GTO inverters replaced with new ABB IGBT ones (used the same original inverters as Eurotunnel 90xx) using the "off the shelf" solution ABB had developed for Eurotunnel and CFF.

b) replacement of the entire traction electrical system (DC traction motors or single phase non variable frequency AC and downstream of the transformer in the OHLE case*) - new motors and initial fitment of (IGBT) inverters [more expensive, more involved and time consuming].

• SWT/SWR 455s,
• SWR 442 (never entered service post rebuild)
• Anglia "Renatus" 321s*
• 1992 tube stock
• SWR 484s

Outside of TfL most of the rest of the industry uses Associated Rewinds in Dublin for motor repair and they have a few good animations on the website. https://associatedrewinds.com/index.html
(Mostly locomotive motors (much bigger) shown in the photos e.g. Class 66, 59, HST power car, 70, Traxx)

Thank you for an enlightening and comprehensive response.

 

[hwl]

Thank you for an enlightening and comprehensive response.

That isn't comprehensive, it is just the first paragraph of what might be a comprehensive response...

 

[branny_rail465]

The 1992 tube stock is different to what was done to the BREL / Brush 465/0 & 1, neither of which is shown in the video.

The video mentions the retractionings of the 1992 stock but doesn't actually show it, the main (only) visual topic is keeping the existing traction equipment working. What is shown in the video is knackered existing DC traction motors (with commutator flash over damage) being taken off to be sent away for rebuild, and refurbished existing DC traction motors being refitted - this is what LU and 3rd rail EMU operators have been doing for over a century (same applies to the DC traction motors on older Diesel Electric locomotives).
Nothing about the new traction system is visually shown in the video.
One of the advantage of the three phase asynchronous "squirrel cage" motors is they don't have commutators so are much less prone to catastrophic failure (they are also more efficient, smaller lighter). You can't show commutator repairs on motors that don't have commutators!
In the medium term those motors in the video will either end up as Waterloo and City stock spare parts float or scrap.

I terms of "3 phase retractioning" of rolling stock there are two different sets of circumstances that have occurred in the UK:

a) On rolling stock already with three phase AC traction motors, the replacement of older (GTO) inverters with new (IGBT inverters) [cheaper, quicker, easier]:

• BREL / Brush 465/0 & 1s - Original ABB GTO inverters replaced with Hitachi ones (Hitachi wanted to learn the nuance of electrical interference etc in the UK before doing new build with the 395s), motors not replaced
• Most Eurotunnel shuttle locomotives (91xx) - Original ABB GTO inverters replaced with new ABB IGBT ones (retrofit solution developed for Eurotunnel and CFF who had locos using the same GTO inverters)
• GBRf Class 92 - Original ABB GTO inverters replaced with new ABB IGBT ones (used the same original inverters as Eurotunnel 90xx) using the "off the shelf" solution ABB had developed for Eurotunnel and CFF.

b) replacement of the entire traction electrical system (DC traction motors or single phase non variable frequency AC and downstream of the transformer in the OHLE case*) - new motors, initial fitment of (IGBT) inverters and completely new control systems including WSP [more expensive, more involved and time consuming].

• SWT/SWR 455s,
• SWR 442 (never entered service post rebuild)
• Anglia "Renatus" 321s*
• 1992 tube stock
• SWR 484s

Outside of TfL most of the rest of the industry uses Associated Rewinds in Dublin for motor repair and they have a few good animations on the website. https://associatedrewinds.com/index.html
(Mostly locomotive motors (much bigger) shown in the photos e.g. Class 66, 59, HST power car, 70, Traxx)

Oh this is very englightening then. Good thing i joined the server for info. Also , with regards to the 455s and 321s why do they sound almost the same if the motors got replaced? I wonder why that is? You can hear the " IGBT whine" but the other low pitch - high pitch sounds are very similar. Some people say its the gearbox but i have no clue

 

[43096]

The 1992 tube stock is different to what was done to the BREL / Brush 465/0 & 1, neither of which is shown in the video.

The video mentions the retractionings of the 1992 stock but doesn't actually show it, the main (only) visual topic is keeping the existing traction equipment working. What is shown in the video is knackered existing DC traction motors (with commutator flash over damage) being taken off to be sent away for rebuild, and refurbished existing DC traction motors being refitted - this is what LU and 3rd rail EMU operators have been doing for over a century (same applies to the DC traction motors on older Diesel Electric locomotives).
Nothing about the new traction system is visually shown in the video.
One of the advantage of the three phase asynchronous "squirrel cage" motors is they don't have commutators so are much less prone to catastrophic failure (they are also more efficient, smaller lighter). You can't show commutator repairs on motors that don't have commutators!
In the medium term those motors in the video will either end up as Waterloo and City stock spare parts float or scrap.

I terms of "3 phase retractioning" of rolling stock there are two different sets of circumstances that have occurred in the UK:

a) On rolling stock already with three phase AC traction motors, the replacement of older (GTO) inverters with new (IGBT inverters) [cheaper, quicker, easier]:

• BREL / Brush 465/0 & 1s - Original ABB GTO inverters replaced with Hitachi ones (Hitachi wanted to learn the nuance of electrical interference etc in the UK before doing new build with the 395s), motors not replaced
• Most Eurotunnel shuttle locomotives (91xx) - Original ABB GTO inverters replaced with new ABB IGBT ones (retrofit solution developed for Eurotunnel and CFF who had locos using the same GTO inverters)
• GBRf Class 92 - Original ABB GTO inverters replaced with new ABB IGBT ones (used the same original inverters as Eurotunnel 90xx) using the "off the shelf" solution ABB had developed for Eurotunnel and CFF.

The GBRf 92s have had new (IGBT) auxiliary converters but not new traction converters, as I understand it. I’m not sure what DB Cargo are doing with their prototype 92 upgrade, though.

You can, though, add the Class 323 fleet to the list: they have all received new Alstom IGBT converters.

b) replacement of the entire traction electrical system (DC traction motors or single phase non variable frequency AC and downstream of the transformer in the OHLE case*) - new motors, initial fitment of (IGBT) inverters and completely new control systems including WSP [more expensive, more involved and time consuming].

• SWT/SWR 455s,
• SWR 442 (never entered service post rebuild)
• Anglia "Renatus" 321s*
• 1992 tube stock
• SWR 484s

The Class 230 conversions have also received new traction systems, replacing their LU DC kit.