Modernizace trakčního systému vozidel metra

Abstract

Thanks to the arrival of the new metro MPL16 and the obsolescence of the MPL75 traction chain, it was necessary to consider a switch between the current MPL75 traction chain and the new generation of the MPL16 traction chain (asynchronous motor). A comparison between DC Motor and Asynchronous Motor revealed that the second one is more robust, requires low maintenance and is lighter and smaller than the DC Motor for the same output power. To determine if the MPL16 traction chain can work on the MPL75, some simulations of traction performances in different modes, travel time and consumed energy were done. Following the results, with an addition of a boost to cross the maximum slope of the line A, the MPL75/NewGeneration (with the MPL16 traction chain) corresponds to our need. In addition, the difference of the travel time is negligible and the MPL75/NG consumes much less energy than the current MPL75 traction chain. Finally, it was necessary to verify the feasibility of the installation in the MPL75 and to evaluate the benefits of this modification. Financially and mechanically, this modification is possible and benefic. In fact, if we change the MPL75 traction chain, we can have a gain on the consumed energy and on the labor cost. In addition, it allows to have only one equipment for two different metros (more comfortable for the maintenance workshop).

Thanks to the arrival of the new metro MPL16 and the obsolescence of the MPL75 traction chain, it was necessary to consider a switch between the current MPL75 traction chain and the new generation of the MPL16 traction chain (asynchronous motor). A comparison between DC Motor and Asynchronous Motor revealed that the second one is more robust, requires low maintenance and is lighter and smaller than the DC Motor for the same output power. To determine if the MPL16 traction chain can work on the MPL75, some simulations of traction performances in different modes, travel time and consumed energy were done. Following the results, with an addition of a boost to cross the maximum slope of the line A, the MPL75/NewGeneration (with the MPL16 traction chain) corresponds to our need. In addition, the difference of the travel time is negligible and the MPL75/NG consumes much less energy than the current MPL75 traction chain. Finally, it was necessary to verify the feasibility of the installation in the MPL75 and to evaluate the benefits of this modification. Financially and mechanically, this modification is possible and benefic. In fact, if we change the MPL75 traction chain, we can have a gain on the consumed energy and on the labor cost. In addition, it allows to have only one equipment for two different metros (more comfortable for the maintenance workshop).