Current collecting performance tests

4.1 Outline of test

We installed a feeder messenger catenary that provided satisfactory simulation results on the current collection test equipment in our institute and performed current collecting performance tests. Table 2 shows the catenary composition and Table 3 shows the property of pantographs used in this tests. Table 4 shows

Feeder m essenger P H590mm²×1

the tension distribution of each wire. We ran pantograph at 80 to 150km/h at intervals of 10km/h to perform current collecting performance tests.

Table 2: Catenary compositions.

Table 3: Property of the pantograph used in experiments.

Table 4: Tension distribution of each wire.

4.2 Test results of the “composite type”

4.2.1 Contact loss rate and uplift under different conditions

Figure 7 shows the contact loss rate measured in current collecting tests under different conditions in Table 4. In the case of the pantograph PS21, the contact loss rate was 1% or less up to 150km/h (Figure 7 (a)) to prove the satisfactory quality of current collection. Contact breaks occurred at 140km/h or over under the condition (1), but not under the condition (2) or (3).

When the tension distribution of contact wire increases, therefore the contact loss rate decreases. This phenomenon appeared notably in the case

Pan togra ph type PS21 PS32

Form Lozen ge Sin gle a rm m essen ger wir e wire yoke

(1) 39.2kN 4.9kN 9.8kN 2:1

(2) 34.3kN 6.6kN 13.0kN 2:1

(3) 34.3kN 4.9kN 14.7kN 3:1

Ra tio of Ten sion

Con dition

㪇㪅㪇 㪉㪅㪌

㪎㪇 㪈㪇㪇 㪈㪊㪇 㪈㪍㪇

㪪㫇㪼㪼㪻㩷㪲㫂㫄㪆㪿㪴

㪚㫆㫅㫋㪸㪺㫋㩷㫃㫆㫊㫊㩷㫉㪸㫋㪼㩷㪲㩼㪴

㪇㪅㪇 㪉㪅㪌

㪎㪇 㪈㪇㪇 㪈㪊㪇 㪈㪍㪇

㪪㫇㪼㪼㪻㩷㪲㫂㫄㪆㪿㪴

㪚㫆㫅㫋㪸㪺㫋㩷㫃㫆㫊㫊㩷㫉㪸㫋㪼㩷㪲㩼㪴

Figure 7: (a) Experiment results of contact loss rate (PS21) (b) Experiment results of contact loss rate (PS32).

4.2.2 Contact loss rate when spring hangers were used

The current collection performance of pantograph was measured when one or two hangers were used in place of spring hangers from the support in order to make the spring constants of the catenary near the support smaller. Figure 8 shows the contact loss rate when the pantograph PS32 was used. Figure 8 shows that the contact loss rate was almost the same whether normal hangers or spring hangers were used up to 130km/h.

㪇㪅㪇 㪉㪅㪌 㪇

㪎㪇 㪈㪇㪇 㪈㪊㪇 㪈㪍㪇

㪪㫇㪼㪼㪻㩷㪲㫂㫄㪆㪿㪴

㪚㫆㫅㫋㪸㪺㫋㩷㫃㫆㫊㫊㩷㫉㪸㫋㪼㩷㪲㩼㪴

㪥㫆㫉㫄㪸㫃㩷㪿㪸㫅㪾㪼㫉 㪪㫇㫉㫀㫅㪾㩷㪿㪸㫅㪾㪼㫉 㪌㪅

Figure 8: Experiment results of contact loss rate (PS32).

At 140km/h or over, however, the contact loss rate decreased significantly when spring hangers were used to show that the current collecting performance improved.

The contact wire strain was smaller than that in the case where normal hangers were used. There were no problems in the contact wire uplift at support, since it was much smaller than the allowable value though it had became larger.

4.3 Test results of the “compound type”

4.3.1 Comparison of contact loss rate by suspended type

We constructed two structures of the “dropper form” whose dropper intervals were 5m and 10m in our institute and performed current collecting tests for the structures of Figure 9. Figure 10 (a) and (b) shows the results of current collecting performance tests of the “hanger form” and the “dropper form”. The contact loss rate was small with the “dropper form” of 5m dropper intervals in both cases of PS21 and PS32. The contact loss rate of PS21 was 1% or less up to 150km/h, and the current collecting performance was extremely good. In the case of PS32, the contact loss rate was 1% or less up to 130km/h, and nearly 2%

from 140km/h to 150km/h, and the results were allowable value.

Figure 9: “Dropper form compound type” feeder messenger catenary.

4.3.2 Comparison of contact loss rate by tension distribution

We performed current collecting tests on the “dropper form” whose dropper interval was 5m to ensure the best current collecting performance under the condition of wire tension distributions shown in Table 4. Figure 11 and 12 show the measured contact loss rate and contact wire strain respectively, when the pantograph PS21 was used. The contact loss rate was small when the tension distribution of contact wire was large at the speed up to 130km/h (Figure 11).

The contact wire strain also became small when the tension distribution of the contact wire was large (Figure 12).

At the speed of 150km/h, the contact wire strain to exceeded the allowable value of 500×10^-6 in the case of (1) contact wire tension 9.8kN, but was less than the allowable value in the case of (3) contact wire tension 14.7kN. As mentioned above, the current collection performance was also good to suit high speed

(b) Dropper interval with 5m

50mm 5m5m

(a) Dropper interval with 10m

㪇㪅㪇

㪎㪇 㪈㪇㪇 㪈㪊㪇 㪈㪍㪇

㪪㫇㪼㪼㪻㩷㪲㫂㫄㪆㪿㪴

㪚㫆㫅㫋㪸㪺㫋㩷㫃㫆㫊㫊㩷㫉㪸㫋㪼㩷㪲㩼㪴

㪇㪅㪇

㪎㪇 㪈㪇㪇 㪈㪊㪇 㪈㪍㪇

㪪㫇㪼㪼㪻㩷㪲㫂㫄㪆㪿㪴

㪚㫆㫅㫋㪸㪺㫋㩷㫃㫆㫊㫊㩷㫉㪸㫋㪼㩷㪲㩼㪴

Figure 10: (a) Test results of contact loss rate (PS21) (b) Test results of contact loss rate (PS32).

㪍

㪇㪅㪇 㪉㪅㪌

㪎㪇 㪈㪇㪇 㪈㪊㪇 㪈㪍㪇

㪪㫇㪼㪼㪻㩷㪲㫂㫄㪆㪿㪴 㪚㫆㫅㪻㫀㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㩿㪈㪀 㪚㫆㫅㪻㫀㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㩿㪊㪀 㪌㪅㪇

㪚㫆㫅㫋㪸㪺㫋㩷㫃㫆㫊㫊㩷㫉㪸㫋㪼㩷㪲㩼㪴

Figure 11: Test results of contact loss rate (different tension).

㪄㪎㪌㪇 㪄㪉㪌㪇 㪉㪌㪇 㪎㪌㪇

㪪㫋㫉㪸㫀㫅㩷㪲㪈㬍㪈㪇㪄㪍 㪴

㪎㪇 㪈㪇㪇 㪈㪊㪇 㪈㪍㪇

㪪㫇㪼㪼㪻㩷㪲㫂㫄㪆㪿㪴 㪚㫆㫅㪻㫀㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㩿㪈㪀 㪚㫆㫅㪻㫀㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㩿㪊㪀

Figure 12: Test results of the contact wire strain.