PDF

IEEE Guide for Rail Transit Traction
Power Systems Modeling
IEEE Vehicular Technology Society
Sponsored by the
Rail Transportation Standards Committee
IEEE
3 Park Avenue IEEE Std 1653.3™-2012
New York, NY 10016-5997
USA
18 January 2013
Authorized licensed use limited to: TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on May 01,2017 at 12:04:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE Std 1653.3™-2012

Sponsor
Rail Transportation Standards Committee

of the
IEEE Vehicular Technology Society
Approved 5 December 2012
IEEE-SA Standards Board
Approved 30 September 2014
American National Standards Institute
Abstract: A description of the data, techniques, and procedures typically used in modeling and
analysis of traction power systems is provided in this guide.
Keywords: analysis, IEEE 1653.3, modeling, traction power
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5997, USA
Copyright © 2013 by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

All rights reserved. Published 18 January 2013. Printed in the United States of America.
IEEE is a registered trademark in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, owned by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Incorporated.
PDF: ISBN 978-0-7381-8075-5 STD98066

Print: ISBN 978-0-7381-8076-2 STDPD98066
IEEE prohibits discrimination, harassment, and bullying. For more information, visit http://www.ieee.org/web/aboutus/whatis/policies/p9-26.html.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission
of the publisher.
Notice and Disclaimer of Liability Concerning the Use of IEEE Documents: IEEE Standards documents are developed
within the IEEE Societies and the Standards Coordinating Committees of the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA)
Standards Board. IEEE develops its standards through a consensus development process, approved by the American National
Standards Institute, which brings together volunteers representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve the final product.
Volunteers are not necessarily members of the Institute and serve without compensation. While IEEE administers the process
and establishes rules to promote fairness in the consensus development process, IEEE does not independently evaluate, test, or
verify the accuracy of any of the information or the soundness of any judgments contained in its standards.
Use of an IEEE Standard is wholly voluntary. IEEE disclaims liability for any personal injury, property or other damage, of
any nature whatsoever, whether special, indirect, consequential, or compensatory, directly or indirectly resulting from the
publication, use of, or reliance upon any IEEE Standard document.
IEEE does not warrant or represent the accuracy or content of the material contained in its standards, and expressly disclaims
any express or implied warranty, including any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a specific purpose, or that
the use of the material contained in its standards is free from patent infringement. IEEE Standards documents are supplied "AS
IS."
The existence of an IEEE Standard does not imply that there are no other ways to produce, test, measure, purchase, market, or
provide other goods and services related to the scope of the IEEE standard. Furthermore, the viewpoint expressed at the time a
standard is approved and issued is subject to change brought about through developments in the state of the art and comments
received from users of the standard. Every IEEE standard is subjected to review at least every ten years. When a document is
more than ten years old and has not undergone a revision process, it is reasonable to conclude that its contents, although still of
some value, do not wholly reflect the present state of the art. Users are cautioned to check to determine that they have the
latest edition of any IEEE standard.
In publishing and making its standards available, IEEE is not suggesting or rendering professional or other services for, or on
behalf of, any person or entity. Nor is IEEE undertaking to perform any duty owed by any other person or entity to another.
Any person utilizing any IEEE Standards document, should rely upon his or her own independent judgment in the exercise of
reasonable care in any given circumstances or, as appropriate, seek the advice of a competent professional in determining the
appropriateness of a given IEEE standard.
Translations: The IEEE consensus development process involves the review of documents in English only. In the event that
an IEEE standard is translated, only the English version published by IEEE should be considered the approved IEEE standard.
Official Statements: A statement, written or oral, that is not processed in accordance with the IEEE-SA Standards Board
Operations Manual shall not be considered the official position of IEEE or any of its committees and shall not be considered to
be, nor be relied upon as, a formal position of IEEE. At lectures, symposia, seminars, or educational courses, an individual
presenting information on IEEE standards shall make it clear that his or her views should be considered the personal views of
that individual rather than the formal position of IEEE.
Comments on Standards: Comments for revision of IEEE Standards documents are welcome from any interested party,
regardless of membership affiliation with IEEE. However, IEEE does not provide consulting information or advice pertaining
to IEEE Standards documents. Suggestions for changes in documents should be in the form of a proposed change of text,
together with appropriate supporting comments. Since IEEE standards represent a consensus of concerned interests, it is
important to ensure that any responses to comments and questions also receive the concurrence of a balance of interests. For
this reason, IEEE and the members of its societies and Standards Coordinating Committees are not able to provide an instant
response to comments or questions except in those cases where the matter has previously been addressed. Any person who
would like to participate in evaluating comments or revisions to an IEEE standard is welcome to join the relevant IEEE
working group at http://standards.ieee.org/develop/wg/.
Comments on standards should be submitted to the following address:
Secretary, IEEE-SA Standards Board

445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ 08854
USA
Photocopies: Authorization to photocopy portions of any individual standard for internal or personal use is granted by The
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., provided that the appropriate fee is paid to Copyright Clearance Center.
To arrange for payment of licensing fee, please contact Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Danvers, MA 01923 USA; +1 978 750 8400. Permission to photocopy portions of any individual standard for educational
classroom use can also be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center.
Notice to users
Laws and regulations

Users of IEEE Standards documents should consult all applicable laws and regulations. Compliance with
the provisions of any IEEE Standards document does not imply compliance to any applicable regulatory
requirements. Implementers of the standard are responsible for observing or referring to the applicable
regulatory requirements. IEEE does not, by the publication of its standards, intend to urge action that is not
in compliance with applicable laws, and these documents may not be construed as doing so.
Copyrights
This document is copyrighted by the IEEE. It is made available for a wide variety of both public and
private uses. These include both use, by reference, in laws and regulations, and use in private self-
regulation, standardization, and the promotion of engineering practices and methods. By making this
document available for use and adoption by public authorities and private users, the IEEE does not waive
any rights in copyright to this document.
Updating of IEEE documents

Users of IEEE Standards documents should be aware that these documents may be superseded at any time
by the issuance of new editions or may be amended from time to time through the issuance of amendments,
corrigenda, or errata. An official IEEE document at any point in time consists of the current edition of the
document together with any amendments, corrigenda, or errata then in effect. In order to determine whether
a given document is the current edition and whether it has been amended through the issuance of
amendments, corrigenda, or errata, visit the IEEE-SA Website at http://standards.ieee.org/index.html or
contact the IEEE at the address listed previously. For more information about the IEEE Standards
Association or the IEEE standards development process, visit IEEE-SA Website at
http://standards.ieee.org/index.html.
Errata
Errata, if any, for this and all other standards can be accessed at the following URL:
http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/errata/index.html. Users are encouraged to check this URL for errata
periodically.
Patents
Attention is called to the possibility that implementation of this standard may require use of subject matter
covered by patent rights. By publication of this standard, no position is taken by the IEEE with respect to
the existence or validity of any patent rights in connection therewith. If a patent holder or patent applicant
has filed a statement of assurance via an Accepted Letter of Assurance, then the statement is listed on the
IEEE-SA Website at http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/patents.html. Letters of Assurance may
indicate whether the Submitter is willing or unwilling to grant licenses under patent rights without
compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of
any unfair discrimination to applicants desiring to obtain such licenses.
iv
Copyright © 2013 IEEE. All rights reserved.
Essential Patent Claims may exist for which a Letter of Assurance has not been received. The IEEE is not
responsible for identifying Essential Patent Claims for which a license may be required, for conducting
inquiries into the legal validity or scope of Patents Claims, or determining whether any licensing terms or
conditions provided in connection with submission of a Letter of Assurance, if any, or in any licensing
agreements are reasonable or non-discriminatory. Users of this standard are expressly advised that
determination of the validity of any patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, is entirely
their own responsibility. Further information may be obtained from the IEEE Standards Association.
v
Participants
At the time this IEEE guide was completed, the Traction Power Modeling Working Group had the
following membership:
Michael Dinolfo, Chair

Mark Pfeiffer, Vice Chair
Roger M. Avery Mark Griffiths Gareth Rees

Amildo Barrio David Groves David Reinke
Steven Bezner William F. Hanlon, Jr. Richard Rohr
Alan Blatchford Zoltan F. Horvath Charles Ross
Gilbert Cabral Andrew Jones Edward Rowe
Sean Carney Sheldon Kennedy Holali Sathya
Yunxiang Chen Tanuj Khandelwal Richard Shiflet
Ron Clark Ethan Kim Lee Shostle
Chuck Dale Bih-Yuan Ku Pranaya Shrestha
Prakash Dave Stuart Kuritzky Suresh Shrimavle
Ray Davis Emil Leutwyler Jeffrey N. Sisson
Dan Day Ming Li Fernando Soares
Ramesh Dhingra Louie Luo Benjamin Stell
James Dietz Frank Machara Rick Straubel
Dan Ferrante Alok Kumar Mandal Raymond Strittmatter
Paul Forquer Ted Manning Daren Szekely
Derek Foster William Mao Scott Tollefson
Alan Friend Vishwanath Mawley Gary Touryan
Rajen Ganeriwal Moustapha Ouattara Jefrey Wharton
Vitaly Gelman Henry Oviedo Barry Wilson
Brian Gerzeny Chris Pagni Robert Wilson
Mike Girdwood Vince Paparo Tom Young
David R. Gobelle Mark Patterson Gordon Yu
Lowell Goudge Dev Paul Kelvin Zan
The following members of the individual balloting committee voted on this guide. Balloters may have
voted for approval, disapproval, or abstention.
William Aycock Andrew Jones Gil Shultz

Ronald Bennell Walter Keevil Alexander Sinyak
Steven Bezner Udayan Khan Jeffrey N. Sisson
Bill Brown Yuri Khersonsky Ralph Stell
Carl Bush Ethan Kim Eugene Stoudenmire
William Bush Saumen Kundu Rick Straubel
Keith Chow Greg Luri Raymond Strittmatter
Timothy Cramond David Mueller Brandon Swartley
Michael Dinolfo Michael S. Newman Gary Touryan
Robert Fisher Hans-Wolf Oertel John Vergis
Paul Forquer Mark Pfeiffer Matthew Wakeham
H. Glickenstein D. Phelps Robert Wilson
Randall Groves Charles Ross Jian Yu
Werner Hoelzl Bartien Sayogo Daidi Zhong
Suresh Shrimavle
vi
When the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved this guide on 5 December 2012, it had the following
membership:
Richard H. Hulett, Chair

John Kulick, Vice Chair
Robert M. Grow, Past Chair
Konstantinos Karachalios, Secretary
Satish Aggarwal Alexander Gelman Oleg Logvinov

Masayuki Ariyoshi Paul Houzé Ted Olsen
Peter Balma Jim Hughes Gary Robinson
William Bartley Young Kyun Kim Jon Walter Rosdahl
Ted Burse Joseph L. Koepfinger* Mike Seavey
Clint Chaplin John Kulick Yatin Trivedi
Wael Diab David J. Law Phil Winston
Jean-Philippe Faure Thomas Lee Yu Yuan
Hung Ling
*Member Emeritus
Also included are the following nonvoting IEEE-SA Standards Board liaisons:
Richard DeBlasio, DOE Representative

Michael Janezic, NIST Representative
Julie Alessi
IEEE Standards Program Manager, Document Development
Michael Kipness
IEEE Standards Program Manager, Technical Program Development
vii
Introduction
This introduction is not part of IEEE Std 1653.3-2012, IEEE Guide for Rail Transit Traction Power Systems Modeling.
During development and updating of various IEEE standards and recommended practices related to rail
transit traction power, the Rail Transportation Standards Committee of the Vehicular Technology Society
recognized a need for a published document to describe the process of traction power system modeling.
This guide provides an introduction to the terminology and methodology of rail transit traction power
systems modeling.
viii
Contents
1. Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Limitations........................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations .................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Definitions ........................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Acronyms and abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 3
3. Modeling and validation............................................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Train operations and wayside network modeling ................................................................................ 6
3.3 Faults ................................................................................................................................................. 10
4. Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 15
4.2 Cable, conductor, and equipment ratings vs. loading ........................................................................ 16
4.3 Equipment ratings.............................................................................................................................. 19
4.4 Train voltages .................................................................................................................................... 20
4.5 Running rail-to-ground voltages........................................................................................................ 20
4.6 Contingency analysis ......................................................................................................................... 20
4.7 Substation rating and placement ........................................................................................................ 21
4.8 Examples of temporary or permanent mitigation strategies .............................................................. 22
Annex A (informative) Field validation of train operations and wayside network modeling ..................... 23
A.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 23
A.2 Field verification............................................................................................................................... 23
A.3 Organizational structure and roles of validation participants............................................................ 25
Annex B (informative) Contents of typical report on train operations and wayside network modeling ..... 26
Annex C (informative) Detailed input parameter list for dc system analysis .............................................. 27
Annex D (informative) Typical feeder characteristics................................................................................. 31

D.1 Conductor characteristics of running rails and contact rails ............................................................. 31
D.2 Inductance of running rails and contact rails (dc traction power systems) ....................................... 31
D.3 DC resistance of typical OCS and feeder conductors ....................................................................... 32
Annex E (informative) Tabulation of train voltage limits for dc traction power systems ........................... 33
Annex F (informative) Tabulation of rail-to-ground voltage limits for dc traction power systems............. 35
Annex G (informative) Rolling load calculations........................................................................................ 37
Annex H (informative) Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 40
ix
IMPORTANT NOTICE: IEEE Standards documents are not intended to ensure safety, health, or
environmental protection, or ensure against interference with or from other devices or networks.
Implementers of IEEE Standards documents are responsible for determining and complying with all
appropriate safety, security, environmental, health, and interference protection practices and all
applicable laws and regulations.
This IEEE document is made available for use subject to important notices and legal disclaimers.
These notices and disclaimers appear in all publications containing this document and may
be found under the heading “Important Notice” or “Important Notices and Disclaimers
Concerning IEEE Documents.” They can also be obtained on request from IEEE or viewed at
http://standards.ieee.org/IPR/disclaimers.html.
1. Overview
1.1 Scope
This guide provides a description of the data, techniques, and procedures used in modeling and analysis of
rail transit traction power systems.
1.2 Purpose
This guide provides methods and terminology for rail transit traction power system modeling.
1.2.1 Applicability
This guide is intended for application by engineers involved in the design and specification of new traction
power systems, and the technical evaluation of existing traction power systems in response to re-definition
of operating parameters (e.g., increase in service).
1
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
IEEE Guide for Rail Transit Traction Power Systems Modeling
1.2.2 DC versus ac traction power systems
This guide is intended to apply primarily to dc traction power systems. However, many of the techniques
can be applied to ac traction power system analysis.
1.3 Limitations
While this guide establishes a methodology for determination of various parameters that may be of value to
designers of individual traction power system components (e.g., switchgear, transformers, rectifiers, cable),
it does not address the detailed design process for those components.
Where analysis described in this guide is similar to analyses described in IEEE Std 399TM [B26], this
document does not repeat the information in IEEE Std 399 [B26], but instead highlights how the IEEE Std
399 [B26] recommendations should be tailored to the specific requirements of a traction power system.
This document also describes certain studies that may be of value as part of traction power system design
but are not usually part of commercial and industrial design.
2. Definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations

For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply. The IEEE Standards
Dictionary Online should be consulted for terms not defined in this clause. 1
2.1 Definitions
ac traction power system: A transit system in which power is delivered from wayside to on-board
vehicular systems via alternating current, at nominally constant (or not deliberately varied) frequency, at
the vehicle/wayside interface.
auxiliary power (hotel power): Those systems, other than propulsion of the vehicle/consist that draw
electrical energy. Examples include lighting, heating and air conditioning, air compressors, etc.
AW0: The ready-to-run vehicle, without crew or passengers.
AW1: AW0 + crew + every seat occupied by a passenger. For U.S. transit properties, a commonly accepted
weight per passenger for this purpose is 70.3 kg (155 lb).
AW2: AW1 load + weight of standees at 0.251m2 (2.7 ft2) of suitable standing space per standee.
bunching: Deviation of individual headways (between adjacent trains) compared to nominal or average
headway.
contact conductor: The part of the distribution system, other than the track rails, that is in immediate
electric contact with current collectors of the cars or locomotives. 2
1
IEEE Standards Dictionary Online subscription is available at:
http://www.ieee.org/portal/innovate/products/standard/standards_dictionary.html.
2
The contact conductor is usually either a contact rail (sometimes known as a third rail), or the contact wire of an overhead contact
system.
2
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
dc traction power system: A transit system in which power is delivered from wayside to on-board
vehicular systems via direct current at the vehicle/wayside interface.
design criteria: A description of required system performance. This may establish different requirements
depending on status of the wayside traction power system (e.g., single contingency outage conditions vs.
operation with all equipment in service).
dwell time: The period of time measured from the instant a train stops at its berth at a passenger station
until the instant it resumes motion.
headway: The time separation between two trains both traveling in the same direction on the same track. It
is measured from the time the head-end of the leading train passes a given reference point to the time the
head-end of the following train passes the same reference point. Nominal headway is sometimes used to
apply to design headway for a system, or average headway of a group of trains.
normal conditions: When the traction power system configuration is not impaired by an outage to a
substation or a feeder segment.
track stationing: The agreed upon measuring of distance and location identification along the railroad.
track-to-ground (rail-to-ground) voltage: The potential difference between track and earth at a given
location.
train consist: Quantity of cars in an operating train. This is typically a design constraint (e.g., operation
with a six-car train consist). When this term is applied in connection with simulation and modeling, it may
also be appropriate to establish the types of cars in an operating train (e.g., operation with a train consist of
six Type A cars plus two Type B cars).
transit property: The organization that operates the traction power system and trains.
vehicle/wayside interface: The point(s) at which electrical power is transferred between the wayside
electrical distribution network and vehicles. 3 These interface points are the location where vehicle contact
shoes or pantographs are in touch with contact conductors and the rail/wheel contact points.
vehicle weight: Several vehicle weights are of interest for different purposes, and are often called out as
follows:
AW0: The ready-to-run vehicle, without crew or passengers
AW1: AW0 + crew + every seat occupied by a passenger. For U.S. transit properties, a commonly
accepted weight per passenger for this purpose is 70.3 kg (155 lb).
AW2: AW1 load + weight of standees at 0.251m2 (2.7 ft2) of suitable standing space per standee
2.2 Acronyms and abbreviations
NGD Negative Grounding Device
OCS Overhead Contact System
RMS Root-mean-square (See 3.2.7.1)
3
The direction of power flow is usually from the wayside system to the vehicle(s) but can be from vehicle(s) to the wayside power
distribution system, during regenerative braking.
3
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
3. Modeling and validation
3.1 Introduction
Different model(s) will typically be required during system design, each one developed and tailored to
specific issues and needs.
⎯ During initial design, and prior to commencement of construction for a new transit system, analysis
can establish preliminary locations for substations and can confirm the feasibility of proposed
system characteristics (e.g., overhead contact system (OCS) conductor types/sizes, nominal and
minimum system voltages, substation ratings, etc.).
⎯ As design is finalized, modeling is of value to confirm and finalize system and equipment
characteristics, and to develop engineering estimates of relevant system performance characteristics
(e.g., energy consumption, vehicle run times).
⎯ For evaluation of existing systems in response to changes in operations levels or deployment of
new vehicles with new performance characteristics, modeling serves to identify areas of the
traction power system that may require capacity upgrade.
⎯ Modeling can be performed at any time to evaluate new or previously unforeseen changes in
operations levels or outages or reconfiguration of the wayside traction power distribution system.
⎯ Modeling can provide a valuable tool to quantify performance characteristics of new technology
systems.
3.1.1 Purpose of modeling
Modeling is generally performed with the intent of assessing traction power system performance and
reliability. Some of the issues that can be addressed via modeling are described below.
3.1.1.1 Quality of power delivered to trainsets
Modeling can provide some indication of the range of voltages that will be delivered to trains during
operations. Comparison of these voltage ranges can be made against train voltage limits (high,
intermediate, or low). Low voltage criteria must be met to ensure continuous operation of trains. Operation
of trains at voltages in the intermediate-to-low voltage range can result in reduced vehicle performance
(i.e., reduction in available acceleration and/or top speed).
3.1.1.2 Overloading assessment of wayside equipment and feeders
Modeling can provide assessment of expected loading (long time, short time, and instantaneous) on
wayside equipment, which can be compared against withstand ratings of equipment, short term or
instantaneous ratings of equipment, and relay settings.
3.1.1.3 Establishment of operational restrictions
Modeling can be used to evaluate proposed operational restrictions in situations where the traction power
system is operating in a reduced capacity (e.g., under selected equipment outages). If analysis of a minor
reduction in system performance (e.g., a reduction in speed in the vicinity of an impaired substation)
indicates that system operations can be maintained, but that system operations cannot be maintained
4
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
without the performance reduction, then the operations restriction might be considered as a viable option
when compared against capital upgrades of the wayside system that would otherwise be required to
maintain full performance.
3.1.1.4 Energy management
Modeling can be used to evaluate or compare the energy consumption of different technologies, system
configurations, and operating strategies/policies.
3.1.2 Baseline criteria
Baseline criteria should be established and verified prior to modeling. Examples of baseline criteria to be
considered may include the following; these should be collectively established by the transit property and
the modelers:
⎯ Applicable criteria or requirements of the user/owner (e.g., desired train service levels, acceptable train
voltage ranges, specific outage conditions to be evaluated)
⎯ Maximum allowable temperature limits of equipment
⎯ Temperature ratings (short term and continuous) for insulation systems
⎯ Environmental conditions for analysis (e.g., ambient temperature, climate)
⎯ Vehicular performance capabilities and limitations, including performance limitations that may result
at low train voltages
⎯ Wayside civil alignment information
⎯ Electrical distribution network characteristics
⎯ Operations levels
⎯ Contingency failure/outage conditions
⎯ Maximum ceiling voltage for regeneration (if regeneration is to be evaluated as part of the simulation
process)
⎯ Other minimum or maximum voltage levels (associated with reduced vehicle performance, or
minimum vehicle cutout voltage, or otherwise established as design criteria limits)
3.1.3 Validation
Validation of the modeling process is desirable. A suggested validation process is described in Annex A.
3.1.4 Commonalities between models
The modeling techniques addressed in this guide generally require preparation of electrical network
model(s) to describe the system and to facilitate analysis. The electrical network(s) require information to
describe individual components of the distribution system, including feeders and equipment (e.g.,
transformers, rectifiers). Power sources (generally utility sources, but also possibly regenerating vehicles)
must be included in the model. It may be necessary to model vehicles as non-linear loads for load flow
analysis of the distribution system. When conducting short circuit analyses, faults may be modeled as nodes
in the system, or possibly as low impedance connections.
5
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
3.2 Train operations and wayside network modeling
3.2.1 Purpose
Train operations and wayside network modeling is performed to determine relevant performance
parameters of a wayside electrical distribution system when providing power to trains. These parameters
can then be compared to equipment and criteria ratings to determine if the wayside system provides an
acceptable quality of power and reliability, and other purposes.
3.2.2 Background and legacy modeling approaches
Calculations of current flow in and voltage at the load is fundamental to the design of traction power
systems, from the earliest use of electric traction. These calculations are straightforward to perform for
simple radial fed loads. For small networked loads and generators, various manual techniques were
developed to simplify the arithmetic. As these networks became larger, these techniques became laborious
and calculation approximations were made as described by De Koranyi [B11]. In many cases, these
approximations were acceptable because the input data and load data were of limited accuracy.
Analogue models were developed and these proved to be very powerful and were used until computer
programs started to become available. Even so, these analogue models also used approximations to limit
the physical size of the model and the amount of work to set up the model. These models could even
perform transient analysis. The accuracy was again only as good as the input data on the line impedances,
loads, generators, and motor starting current. Despite these apparent limitations, robust networks were
regularly designed.
Digital computer-based models can perform complex calculations quickly and accurately and in very large
quantities. All these calculations can be very useful; but just like earlier modeling techniques, they are still
only as accurate as the input data.
3.2.3 Process
Train operations and wayside network modeling is typically performed according to the following
sequence:
Vehicle data collection and model development: Available tractive effort vs. speed for tractive vehicle(s) is
determined. This data might also include variations in tractive effort as a function of voltage at the
vehicle/wayside interface. Subsequently, this data can be used to develop a performance profile (speed vs.
time, and acceleration vs. time, for acceleration from a stationary position to maximum speed) for operation
of a multicar train consist on level tangent (straight) track. This would be established for a fixed loaded
train weight (and, if necessary, at different voltages at the vehicle/wayside interface). Typical equations and
procedures applicable to this process can be found in Railroad Engineering, 2nd Edition [B16]. Collection
of data regarding vehicles should also include data describing auxiliary power requirements.
In some cases, the acceleration (or speed) vs. time performance profile may already be established (for a
given load or train weight) on level tangent track. This may allow for determination of the available tractive
effort vs. speed.
The criteria for analysis should include definition of the vehicle passenger loading (passenger weight) to be
applied during analysis. Vehicle weight AW2 is commonly used for traction power modeling, although the
loaded vehicle weight(s) to be utilized in modeling should be established early in the modeling process by
the transit property. If this criteria is based on loaded vehicle/train weights which are different from the
loaded weight applicable to the initial data described above, then the data (tractive effort vs. speed, speed
6
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
vs. time, and/or acceleration vs. time) must be adapted or revised to reflect the actual weight that is to be
modeled.
Modeling of operation according to specific civil alignment/route characteristics: Data is collected

describing the civil track plan and profile for the actual rail system that is to be analyzed. This would
include data such as grades, curves, alignment, station stops, and speed limits. Physical performance
(speed/location vs. time) for operation of trains on the transit system can then be determined based on
headways and/or train schedules.
Train control methodology must also be considered in developing the model. Different methodologies such
as automatic train operation (ATO), coasting, speed stepping, or braking methods will generate different
results.
Electrical network model development and analysis: An electrical model of the wayside traction power
system is then developed, including utility source impedances and characteristics. In conjunction with train
locations and loads as described above, corresponding train power consumption (including power
consumption associated with propulsion, and with auxiliary on-board vehicle loads) can then be
determined. Network analysis can also determine currents and voltages (as time-varying functions) in the
wayside system.
If necessary, interactions between train performance and system voltages (e.g., dependencies between
tractive effort and train voltage) can be determined by simultaneous or iterative calculations that consider
these parameters.
Computer modeling of a rail transit system in this manner generally requires specialized software, and
different software packages may be suitable for analysis of some transit systems but not others. 4 The user
of software should be sufficiently knowledgeable of the software performance to describe in detail the
algorithms and calculations performed by the software, so that suitability for use on a particular transit
system can be assessed. In addition, the software should have capabilities for detailed data printout at
intermediate stages of calculations so that the correctness of the algorithms and processes can be evaluated.
Additional verification/validation against measured data can also be performed, as described in Annex A.
3.2.4 Regenerative braking
Regenerative braking is typically implemented on modern transit systems to provide some degree of energy
conservation by regenerating kinetic energy from braking trains, and distribution of this power to other
loads (other trains that are consuming power, and/or a receptive utility or transit property distribution
network), or to energy storage systems. However, regeneration may not always be considered as part of a
system modeling effort for the following reasons:
⎯ A network model that considers regeneration may be more complex than a model that ignores
regeneration and therefore may not be available for analysis
⎯ Accurate modeling of regeneration requires additional data to properly describe the performance of
the regenerating trains during braking and the characteristics of the receptive load(s)
⎯ The benefit of regeneration might be intentionally ignored during design to provide a more robust
system because loads on wayside system components are generally greater when the effects of
regeneration are ignored 5
4
For example, some software packages provide for analysis of dc traction power systems only, or of ac traction power systems only,
as the detailed modeling processes can be considerably different.
5
Where a receptive utility or transit property distribution network is present, it is possible that consideration of regeneration actually
results in computation of higher load on wayside feeder(s), but this situation is not commonly encountered.
7
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
If the primary goal during modeling is to develop an estimate of overall system energy consumption, then
the impact of regenerative braking should be included.
3.2.5 Model time period and sampling interval
Load flow models are, by their nature, steady state rather than transient studies. The time period to be
modeled should be somewhat longer than any headway interval, and not less than the time required for a
train to get from one end of the railroad being studied to the other end. 6 If multiple routes are being
modeled at one time, the modeler may have to make some choices as to what constitutes a train run.
Similarly, if only a segment of the railroad is under study and the boundary station of the study is not
normally an end-of-the-line station, the model must be extended at least one or two stations to generate
proper train movements and the associated electrical demand on the system. For sizing of equipment, the
analysis should be based on peak headways and typically with AW2 train loading or as defined by the
transit property. Energy consumption and/or power demand analysis will use actual train frequency
intervals as the headways change and corresponding train loading changes.
The sampling interval will have a considerable effect on the computation time and data storage
requirements. The sampling interval needs to be fast enough to capture all that is of interest, but not so
short as to create an inordinate amount of data. One second is often used. Longer than one second may tend
to miss acceleration loading. The modeler should try a series of sampling intervals, say 0.1 s, 0.2 s, 0.5 s, 1
s, 2 s, and 5 s, to see how the results vary, and be prepared to demonstrate that the selected sampling
interval is appropriate.
In order to capture the highest traction power demands, the train schedule can be slightly offset. This offset
is commonly referred to as offset resonance or time offset. This offset in the schedule, which is a common
operational reality, can cause two trains starting simultaneously which may not appear in the normal
schedule. Typical offsets range from 1 s to 10 s. The shorter the offset, the more iterations the modeling
program must compute.
3.2.6 Input parameters
Input parameters for analysis include the following:
⎯ Information for train movement/performance simulation

⎯ Signal system
⎯ Yard, storage track, and mainline track information
⎯ Vehicle data (for each vehicle type proposed to be operating)
⎯ Traction power system network data
⎯ Substation data
⎯ Operating plan
⎯ Contingency operation criteria—recovery from operation incidents
⎯ Traction power system contingencies
⎯ Utility information
⎯ Passenger vehicle loading
6
In other words, if the trip time for a train (or bus) is 37 min across the whole railroad, then the simulation time should be 37 min.
With experience, it may be possible to shorten this time.
8
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
A more detailed list of prospective input parameters (for dc traction power systems) is provided in Annex
C.
3.2.7 Output parameters
Relevant output parameters will be different for different modeling purposes. However, available output
parameters are likely to include some or all of the following parameters described below.
3.2.7.1 Root-mean-square (RMS) loads
Electrical equipment is almost always limited in capacity by its ability to dissipate heat. As current creates
heat (P = I2R), current is usually the limiting factor. Traction loads can vary substantially in magnitude over
short time intervals, so it is necessary to establish a method of determining the equivalent heating effect of
a varying current. The root-mean-square (RMS) calculation does this for most components.
RMS (root-mean-square) loads on wayside system elements (such as circuit breakers, feeders, buswork,
rails, OCS conductors, transformers) are of value because these loads can generally be correlated to
appropriate equipment and materials ratings to predict if equipment overloading will occur. These
calculations are generally performed over time intervals between several minutes and several hours
duration.
For a continuous, time varying variable x(t) (such as amperes), RMS loading over a time period from zero
to T can be calculated as:
T
1
rmsload = ∫
T 0
( x (t )) 2 dt (1)
For a time varying load comprised of discrete individual time periods, each of constant loading, RMS
loading can be calculated as:
⎛ n
(L ⋅ t ) ⎞
n
rmsload = ⎜ ∑ ∑t
2
k k k
⎟ (2)
⎝ k =1 k =1 ⎠
Where L1, L2, L3, … are the various load steps in %, per unit, amperes, or actual load, and t1, t2, t3,… are the
respective (time) durations of these loads.
The integration intervals need to be chosen in consideration of the thermal characteristics of equipment
being evaluated. The values of t1, t2, t3,… should each be significantly shorter than the thermal time
constant of the system element, and the total duration of time over which the integration is performed
should be significantly longer than the thermal time constant of the system element.
3.2.7.2 Average load data
Average load data for selected wayside system elements is of value in predicting system energy
consumption. For dc systems, it is also of value when evaluating rectifier loading to determine if
overloading or overheating of rectifiers will occur.
9
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
3.2.7.3 Train voltages
Train voltages must generally be maintained within allowable ranges to ensure proper train operation. At
excessively low train voltages, the train performance will deteriorate (and trains may cease to operate
altogether). As trains move through a transit system, train voltages can be expected to fluctuate
considerably, so the analysis should consider the time-varying nature of train voltages. It may be necessary
to concentrate on minimum train voltages and/or on various statistical representations (such as probability
distributions) to assess system performance and acceptability.
See Annex E for voltage limiting criteria values of various transit properties.
Train voltages from simulation should be plotted against wayside track stations (or chain markers) to
facilitate the identification of specific geographic area(s) where train voltages are outside of criteria limits.
The recommended format for these plots is with voltages along the y-axis and track locations on the x-axis.
Scatter plots (presenting a plotted point corresponding to each individual calculated train location and
voltage), or density plots, are also of value.
3.2.7.4 Peak current
Peak current is of interest to establish proper circuit breaker rating and proper settings for relaying devices.
3.2.7.5 Running rails-to-ground voltages
Voltages from running rails-to-ground may be computed during analysis for subsequent comparison against
criteria limits. These voltages may be of interest for the following reasons:
a) Stray currents (which can result in corrosion of underground utilities) are directly related to running
rails-to-ground voltages.
b) Running rails-to-ground voltages can result in unacceptably high levels of touch potential on the
system. This can be a safety concern:
1) For transit personnel
2) For the public at passenger station platforms
3) For the public along shared rights-of-way
c) Inadvertent connection(s) from tracks-to-ground can result in current flow of several hundred
amperes at the point(s) of connection. This can cause significant equipment damage.
3.3 Faults
3.3.1 Fault (short-circuit) modeling
Purpose: Fault modeling is done in traction power systems for the same reasons that fault modeling is done
in commercial and industrial power systems:
a) To establish touch-and-step potentials for grounding system design

b) To establish equipment ratings
c) To establish protective relay settings
10
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Traction power systems differ greatly from commercial and industrial power systems in the way that
traction power systems are (or are not) connected to earth. A discussion of whether and how to ground a
traction power system is outside the scope of this document, but for the purposes of this discussion, the
following assumptions are made:
1. A railroad powered by a dc traction power system uses one or both running rails to conduct propulsion
current. One pole of the dc system (usually positive in North America) goes to the OCS, or the third rail,
and the other pole (usually negative in North America) goes to the rails. A deliberate effort is made to
isolate the running rails from earth to the greatest extent practicable. In modern construction, the dc system
is virtually never grounded at the substations; substantial effort is made to insulate the system from ground
and to alarm should a ground connection be made. However, older traction systems may be grounded
directly or through diodes. In any event, despite the efforts to insulate the rails from earth, many thousands
of rail insulating pads of individually high resistance value are connected in parallel, and that plus the effect
of rain, dirt, and debris on the tracks results in a net low, and variable, resistance between the running rails
and earth.
2. Rubber-tired electric buses and monorail systems which are powered by dc traction power systems keep
both the positive and negative conductors well insulated from earth with little chance of accidental contact
to earth, because the conductors are both aerial in the case of electric buses, or well protected in the case of
monorails. (It is possible that in a city with both rail traction and rubber-tired electric buses, that both the
trains and buses are powered by a shared traction power system, in which case the general concerns about
the railroad dc traction power system apply.)
3.3.1.1 Types of faults
Table 1 categorizes the types of faults that need to be considered.
Table 1 —Types of faults

Type of fault, expressed Example in dc traction Example in ac traction Comments
in terms often used in power system power system
commercial/industrial
power system analysis
Three-phase faults (1) Between the incoming Within a utility supply This should be studied in
(may be single-line-to- utility service and the ac substation feeding a the same manner as a
ground, double-line-to- terminals of the rectifier. railroad commercial or industrial
ground, or three-phase) Transformer-rectifier power system
faults; ferroresonance.
Three-phase faults (2) Some dc railroads have a This should be studied in
(may be single-line-to- parallel ac power line the same manner as a
ground, double-line-to- connecting rectifier commercial or industrial
ground, or three-phase) substations power system
Line-to-line A broken OCS wire A broken OCS wire As with
landing on the running rails landing on the running rails commercial/industrial
systems, this will result in
Metallic debris connecting Substation bus fault the greatest possible
the third rail to the running magnitude of fault current.
rail Cable fault
Regenerative braking
Transformer-rectifier faults Vehicle faults systems can be sources to
faults of this nature.
Vehicle faults
11
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Table 1, continued
Type of fault, expressed Example in dc traction Example in ac traction Comments
in terms often used in power system power system
commercial/industrial
power system analysis
Line-to-ground (1) OCS or third rail-to- OCS to ground: flashed-
ground: flashed-over over insulator to structure,
insulator to structure, broken OCS wire landing
broken OCS wire landing on ground.
on ground.
Since ac traction power
systems are referenced to
ground, this type of fault is
very similar to the line-to-
line fault.
Line-to-ground (2) Running rail-to-ground Running rail-to-ground
fault created by debris, fault created by debris,
flooding, poor track flooding, poor track
maintenance maintenance
This type of fault is of

concern in dc systems
because of the possibility
of corrosion of railroad or
neighboring structures.
In general, traction power systems suffer faults of all sorts more often than industrial or commercial power
systems do. Reasons for this include:
a) The traction power system conductors must be bare in order that sliding contacts of pantographs or
third rail shoes can make electrical contact with the wayside conductors.
b) Clearances between tunnel or overbuilt structures and traction power system conductors are
generally less than would be built for other types of power systems.
c) The slipstream following a moving train can draw debris along with it.
Preferred system voltages for dc traction are currently given as 750 V, 1500 V, and 3000 V, while the
preferred system voltages for ac traction are currently given as 25 kV and 50 kV at 50 Hz or 60 Hz. Older
dc traction system in the 750 V class range down to 570 V; older ac traction systems may operate at 11 kV,
12 kV, or 15 kV nominal, and at 16-⅔ Hz, 25 Hz, 50 Hz, or 60 Hz.
A line-to-line fault will produce the greatest possible fault current and is therefore the easiest type of fault
to detect. In dc traction power systems, and particularly with large train consists, it can be challenging to
distinguish the starting current of a remote train from a fault. One goal of a dc short-circuit study is to find
a way to make the critical distinction between a remote fault and a remote train start.
A line-to-ground (1) fault in a dc traction system would ideally result in very low fault current because the
rails (the other line) are ideally isolated from earth. At least in dry weather, there may well be an
appreciable resistance between the rails and earth, and a line-to-ground fault may result in fairly low
current, making detection difficult. This situation can also result in the creation of possibly hazardous
voltages (from rails-to-ground).
A line-to-ground (1) fault in an ac traction system will result in a substantial fault current because ac
traction power systems are deliberately grounded at intervals.
A line-to-ground (2) fault for both ac and dc traction addresses the fault from the running rail to earth.
Since there is always a fairly low distributed resistance between the running rails and earth, there will
12
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
always be some leakage current between the running rails and earth. A fault in this case is most likely to be
initiated by metallic debris or floodwater than has made a better-than-usual connection between the rails
and earth.
In dc systems, the leakage current between running rails and earth is a major concern because long-term
direct current flow, even at low levels, can produce corrosion damage to railroad or adjacent structures. For
this reason, a separate stray current study is usually conducted as part of the design of a dc traction power
system, and specific construction techniques are used in tunnels, trackways, and stations to minimize the
conductance between track, structure, and earth.
3.3.1.2 Performing the fault study
The resistance and impedance of the running rails is significant in fault studies. The rails, being of steel and
of non-circular cross-section, will be of different impedance than the OCS or the third rail. The OCS or
third rails, as a group, are sectionalized much differently than the running rails. The fact that the circuit
conductors are dissimilar, and are switched differently, can make it very difficult to use software intended
for commercial or industrial power systems to study traction power systems. (This is also a concern for
load flow studies.)
One must also select the faults to be studied with an eye toward credibility. In any given power system, a
line-to-line fault will produce the greatest magnitude of fault current. In a dc traction power system,
however, the positive and negative conductors are routed as far apart as possible in order to prevent line-to-
line faults from occurring. This is quite different from the practice in ac systems of routing all the
conductors of a particular circuit together to minimize inductive heating of raceways. At first glance, a fault
within a switchgear lineup in a dc traction substation might be considered worthy of study. However, the
typical method of construction, with single pole switchgear on one side of the circuit and the other polarity
separately routed, may make a line-to-line fault within the substation itself so unlikely as to not be worth
consideration.
3.3.1.3 Considerations specific to dc traction power system fault studies
DC circuit breakers are rated in terms of maximum interrupting current and in terms of interrupting energy.
Not only must the breaker be capable of breaking the worse credible fault that it will see, but it must be
capable of absorbing the energy of the arc that results from breaking the fault. Since the load circuit (OCS
or third rail, plus running rails, plus the load) has significant inductance, the energy stored in that
inductance is significant, and that energy will be reflected as the energy of the arc when the circuit breaker
opens. In many applications, the required arcing energy rating is a more onerous requirement than the
maximum fault current.
If a given traction power substation has one rectifier, then the worst imaginable fault will be a bolted fault
between the positive and negative terminals of the rectifier. 7 Such a fault will have to be cleared by the ac
breaker feeding the rectifier and the first dc breaker between rectifier and the external circuit, which is
usually the rectifier dc breaker (sometimes referred to as a cathode breaker). Many traction power
substations are equipped with two rectifiers, and in that case, the worst imaginable fault (assuming both
rectifiers are on line) is a dc bus fault from positive to negative. Such a fault will have to be cleared by
opening up both rectifier dc breakers, or one rectifier breaker and a bus tie breaker, and all trolley or third
rail breakers on the affected bus section.
But the construction of the substation may make such a fault highly unlikely. Typical traction power
substation construction routes the positive and negative conductors well apart, and since the positive bus is
a single-conductor arrangement, it is not typical that a bus positive to negative fault is credible.
7
For a derivation of the theoretical short circuit current at the terminals of a traction rectifier, see “Transient and Steady-State Short
Circuit Currents in Rectifiers for dc Traction Supply” [B43].
13
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
It is often the case that the worst (maximum current) credible fault is from OCS or third rail to running rail
immediately outside the substation, and that the worst (maximum energy) credible fault is from OCS or
third rail to running rail some distance to the next substation. An example of the first case is shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1 —Contact line to track fault outside substation

Strictly speaking, the inflow of fault current from adjacent traction power substations should be considered.
However, the inductance of the traction power circuit from substation to substation is often enough to delay
the rise of current from an adjacent station so that the adjacent station contribution is not significant. If the
railroad has more than two tracks, the effect of parallel inductances may reduce this current limiting effect
to the point where adjacent station contribution is significant.
3.3.1.4 Considerations specific to ac traction power system fault studies
In many respects, the fault analysis of an ac traction power system is very similar to that of commercial and
industrial power systems. However, the engineer involved in such studies should keep the following in
mind:
a) OCS-to-running rail faults would, formally, include the impedance of the rail network-to-ground.
Determining the actual impedance of a network of steel rails is difficult, especially when the
impedance bonds necessary for (signal) track circuits are considered. It is conservative to ignore the
rail impedance and simply treat these as OCS-to-ground faults, but this might result in over-
specified circuit breakers. Not considering the rail impedance may lead to difficulties in sensing
remote faults.
b) Autotransformer electrifications introduce special complications. In an autotransformer system,
three wires are employed: the trolley or OCS, the rail, and a feeder (see Figure 2). The impedance
between trolley and ground is a complex, non-monotonic function that changes at every
autotransformer station. See Lin and Li [B37], Pilo and Rouco [B42], and Kneschke, Hong,
Natarajan, and Naqvi [B35] for further discussion.
14
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Trolley
HV Connection
to Utility Trolley
Rail
Feeder
Figure 2 —Autotransformer system

In Figure 2, a high voltage supply (e.g., 115 kV or 230 kV) from a commercial power system is tapped
single-phase to a transformer with a center-tapped low voltage winding. The center tap is grounded and
connected to the rails. One hot becomes the trolley (OCS), and the other hot becomes the feeder. Rolling
stock loads are not normally connected between the feeder and the rail. Trains connect between the trolley
and the rail. At intervals, autotransformers bridge trolley-to-feeder and are center-tapped to the rail. This
arrangement is most often realized symmetrically, i.e., the trolley-to-rail voltage is the same as the feeder-
to-rail voltage (but 180 degrees out of phase) as for example the 2×25 kV system. However, asymmetric
systems are known, for instance the 12 kV trolley-to-rail, 24 kV feeder-to-rail system.
c) The X/R ratios of ac traction power systems can be quite different from typical values for
commercial or industrial systems. In the 16⅔ Hz traction systems widely used in Europe, the X/R
ratio is approximately 1.
3.3.2 Fault interruption
At some point, the current interrupting device(s) should interrupt the fault. Depending on the particular
application and selection of dc interrupting devices for a fault that is close to the substation, the fault
interruption might occur significantly before the peak current available (prospective current) is attained, or
at any time thereafter.
4. Analysis
4.1 Introduction
Analysis provides for determination of the suitability of selected ratings and configurations for components
and materials in the traction power system, to comply with applicable system design criteria and
constraints, to provide an acceptable level of system reliability, and to avoid significant loss of life of
system components due to overloading. It also includes consideration of characteristics of non-traction
power systems and components (such as vehicles) with the intent of satisfying necessary performance
parameters or requirements of those systems/components.
Analysis can often include evaluation of alternate system configurations until one or more configurations
are found that meet all design constraints.
15
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
4.2 Cable, conductor, and equipment ratings vs. loading
4.2.1 Process overview
Modeling of a traction power system can result in the generation of considerable data describing the loads
that components of the traction power system can be subjected to. Comparison of these loads against
characteristics and ratings of the wayside equipment should be conducted, but is complicated by the time-
varying nature of the loads. To simplify this task wherever possible, condensation of the output data from
modeling into appropriate metrics is employed.
The most commonly applied metric that can be determined from modeling data is RMS load. Other metrics
that can be of use include average load, accumulated I2t (ampere-squared-time) values, and instantaneous
load.
Any RMS calculation should be made using discrete time intervals that are (a) much smaller than the
thermal time constants of the affected components, and (b) much smaller than typical durations of peak
current draws (at trains) associated with train acceleration and movement. A suggested time interval for this
purpose is one second.
The intent of this process is to calculate load data that can be used to establish that the individual
components of the traction power system will not be subject to loads that are excessive for the expected
conditions of service.
4.2.2 Thermal time constants
For wayside system elements, a determination of thermal time constants should be made. The
determination does not need to be particularly accurate (and in most cases, cannot be), but is valuable
because it establishes relative time frames over which calculations should be made.
Table 2 —Thermal time constants

Component Suggested process to calculate Typical range of values
thermal time constant (in lieu of
measurement)
Dry-type and cast-coil rectifier IEEE Std C57.96 [B31] 1 h to 4 h
transformers
Oil filled rectifier transformer IEEE Std C57.92 [B30] 2 h to 4 h
Convection cooled rectifier Multiplication of thermal resistance 30 min to 2 h
times specific heat
Feeder cables in air, in conduit, or in Multiplication of thermal resistance 5 min to 30 min
cable tray; OCS conductors times specific heat (IEEE Std 738
[B27] for overhead conductors)
Feeder cables in ductbank Commercial software programs 4 h to 50 h
Enclosed bus duct Multiplication of thermal resistance 30 min to 2 h
times specific heat
4.2.3 Loading data calculation
Loading data that should be calculated for evaluation include the following. For the purposes of these
determinations, durations of time that are less than one-fifth of the respective component’s thermal time
constant can be considered to be significantly shorter than that of the time constant; and durations of time
that are greater than five times the respective component's thermal time constant can be considered to be
significantly longer than that of the time constant.
16
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
4.2.3.1 Peak currents
Peak (i.e., very short duration) currents (including fault currents) should be compared against equipment
ratings (if defined) and used for protective devices and relay settings.
4.2.3.2 I2t data, calculated over time intervals significantly shorter than that of the
respective component
These calculations are most commonly applied in evaluation of cable and conductor short-time heating due
to faults or short-time overloads.
For insulated conductors, I2t values should be compared against I2t values which are associated with
operation at the limiting (destructive) insulation material temperatures (generally, a value between 150 °C
and 250 °C, depending on the insulation type). This process and calculation are described in greater detail
in IEEE Std 242 [B25].
For overhead conductors, I2t values should be compared against I2t values which are associated with
avoidance of annealing of the copper conductors. A suggested limit is 125 °C for hard-drawn copper as
noted by Stell [B49].
For overhead conductors, I2t values should additionally be compared against I2t values which are associated
with design limits for tensioning of conductors; typical limiting values are 75 °C or 100 °C for copper and
copper alloys, respectively. 8
4.2.3.3 Average load data for rectifiers, calculated over intervals significantly longer than
the time constants of the rectifier(s)
Average load currents should be calculated over rolling time intervals of total duration significantly longer
than rectifier thermal time constant. 9, 10 This calculated load should be used as input for the rectifier rating
evaluation.
4.2.3.4 RMS load data calculated over intervals significantly longer than that of the
respective component
Other than for rectifiers, for routine (normal condition) operation, RMS load values calculated over rolling
time intervals significantly longer than that of the thermal time constant of the respective component should
not exceed the continuous rating of that component. 11 Continuous ratings of rectifier-transformers can be
considered to be the nameplate continuous rating.
Continuous ratings for cable feeders can be considered to be the ampacity at an operating temperature. 12
8
However, this requirement should be applied prudently. For example, an I2t calculation for a fault or a transient load that is close to a
substation may produce a high value, but since the calculation applies only to the short length of overhead conductor that is close to
the substation (between the substation and the fault), the resulting temperature rise of the conductor in this short length might be
allowable, even if it considerably higher than the tensioning limit temperature, if it is part of a much longer tensioned span.
9
Refer to Annex G.
10
Average load rather than RMS load is an appropriate metric to compare against ratings for rectifiers because the heat loss (and by
extension, temperature rise) of rectifiers is usually primarily due to diode forward junction voltage drop (which is relatively constant
over wide ranges of current flow) rather than resistive losses.
11
Refer to Annex G.
12
Although for cables in ductbank, ampacity values are typically established based on a specific 24-h loss factor. Unfortunately,
ampacity values are often published for specified values of load factor rather than loss factor. Although load factor and loss factor are
related, the correlation between them is dependent on the 24-h load cycle, and the load cycle that is typically assumed for the purpose
of determining published ampacity values is quite different from the load cycle that is typically encountered in traction power systems.
17
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Ampacity values for conductors should be determined based on RMS load current and limiting
temperature. It may be appropriate to have different limiting temperatures for different conditions of
operation. For example, conventional solid dielectric insulated cables may have a temperature limit for
normal operation (indefinite duration) of 90 °C, but a short-time contingency rating of 130 °C for limited
durations.
The long-time loading computation generally provides for determination of the RMS ampere load (or for
rectifier units, the average ampere load).
For cable feeders and OCS conductors, load ratings are generally established as ampacity ratings (based on
temperature ratings of conductors) (see Neher and McGrath [B40], Stell [B46], and Stell [B45]). Ampacity
ratings are then compared against RMS loads that are determined as part of the train operations and
wayside network modeling. The ampacity values should be not less than the RMS loads to avoid conductor
overheating, annealing, or reduction of service life.
Conductor ampacities are established differently depending on whether the circuit is ac or dc, and are also
dependent on the physical configuration. Extensive published information is available establishing
ampacities for 60 Hz ac circuits, but these may not be applicable to traction power design (because the
traction power system is a dc system, or a different frequency ac system, or has a different physical
configuration for conductor installation than is addressed in the published information, or is for a different
load factor).
It may be necessary to provide calculation of RMS load(s) over different time intervals for evaluation of
different feeders. For example, OCS contact conductors (with typical thermal time constants of a few dozen
minutes) should be evaluated against RMS loads that are calculated over comparably short time periods
(see IEEE Std 738 [B27]), but conductors in duct banks (with thermal time constants of several hours)
should be evaluated against RMS loads calculated over longer time intervals. Determination of conductor
ampacity in duct banks may also require consideration of conductor load cycle over extended time periods
(e.g., over a 24 h period), to consider the extent to which the surrounding environment (soil, concrete) cools
(or continues to heat, but at a slower rate) between peak loading periods.
4.2.4 Short time (overload and fault) ratings
Short time temperature ratings of conductors may be evaluated against temperature rise experienced for
short durations that may occur during outages of equipment (when other in-service equipment and feeders
will be subjected to higher-than-normal loads).
Analysis based on fault modeling can include the following:
⎯ Selection of required equipment ratings to interrupt faults

⎯ Comparison of withstand ratings for feeders and equipment against peak or prospective fault
durations and magnitudes
⎯ Determination of touch and step potentials during fault conditions
⎯ Selective coordination and relay studies to provide for selective operation of overcurrent devices
during fault conditions, and to establish requirements and settings for overcurrent relays and
devices
Instantaneous cable temperature ratings of conductors may be evaluated against instantaneous temperatures
that will be experienced during fault conditions.
Further description of load factor and loss factor as it relates to ampacity determination can be found in the Electric Power Research
Institute’s “Increased Power Flow Guidebook” Final Report [B13]. It is therefore important to verify that any ampacity value for
cables in ductbank are based on a loss factor that corresponds to the traction power system load cycle.
18
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
4.3 Equipment ratings
4.3.1 Continuous ratings
Major equipment units (e.g., transformers) typically have an established continuous output load rating
(measured in amperes), which may be compared against predicted RMS ampere loads from the
simulation(s). 13 Rectifier long term loading can be considered by comparing average rectifier output load
rating (measured in amperes) against predicted rectifier average loads from the simulations. 14 Breaker
loading can be considered by comparing simulated RMS loads against breaker continuous ampere ratings.
The time required for a cable to reach its operating temperature for a given load varies greatly with the type
of installation. A traction power cable in air, or in conduit which is in air, will have a thermal time constant
of several minutes. A traction power cable in an underground ductbank may have a thermal time constant
of tens of hours.
When computing the effective or rms ampere load to be carried by any piece of equipment, a rolling time
interval should be selected which is significantly shorter than the thermal time constant of the apparatus
under consideration. 15
4.3.2 Overload ratings based on ultimate temperature rise
It is sometimes reasonable to apply equipment in traction power applications where the RMS load exceeds
the continuous load rating, provided that the duration of the calculated load is short enough, when
evaluated against the thermal time constant of the equipment and the overall load cycle, that the
temperature limit(s) of the equipment will not be exceeded. A procedure for applying such an analysis to
transformers is presented in IEEE Std C57.92-1981 [B30]. Such an evaluation considers the thermal time
constant for average temperature rise of the equipment and a known or inferred maximum allowable
average temperature.
4.3.3 Overload ratings based on insulation aging and loss-of-life
It is sometimes reasonable to apply equipment in traction power applications where the RMS load exceeds
the continuous load rating, provided that the equipment will not be subjected to an unacceptable shortening
of life due to aging of insulation systems operating at higher temperatures. A procedure for applying such
an analysis to transformers is presented in IEEE Std C57.91 [B29] and IEEE Std C57.96 [B31]. Such an
evaluation requires knowledge of Arrhenius constants for the insulation materials, thermal time constant(s)
for the equipment, and expected equipment and insulation system lifespan when operated at rated load.
4.3.4 Short time overload ratings
Some equipment units may have defined short-time overload ratings which should be compared against
corresponding short time peak loads. As an example, dc feeder breakers are typically not rated to supply
short time loads in excess of four times the breaker continuous ampere rating.
13
RMS loads generally correlate closely to average internal heat loss, and average internal heat loss generally correlates closely to
temperature rise, for transformers and feeders.
14
This assumes that most of the internal heat loss is generated in the rectifier diode semiconductor junctions. Since the forward bias
voltage in silicon and thyristor diodes does not greatly vary with load (certainly not in a linear manner, in any event), the average
internal rectifier heat loss is closely correlated to the average ampere load served by the rectifier. For rectifiers with significant
resistive losses, it may be necessary to consider not only average value of the load current, but also RMS value of the load current, to
determine average internal rectifier heat loss.
15
Refer to Annex G.
19
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
4.4 Train voltages
Train voltages that are determined as part of the simulation should be compared against vehicle criteria
and/or traction power system performance criteria limits.
Comparison of calculated train voltages against criteria limits should be done with consideration of the
source of the train voltage limit established in the criteria. For example, if the minimum criteria limit value
correlates to dropout voltage of on-board equipment (propulsion equipment and/or auxiliary equipment),
then the criteria limit might be considered as an absolute limit because dropout of the on-board equipment
could result in significant service disruption or passenger inconvenience. On the other hand, a minimum
train voltage criteria limit that correlates to reduction in vehicle performance (e.g., acceleration) might be
interpreted as more of a soft limit if it can be demonstrated that occasional voltage dips below the criteria
limit do not result in significant reduction of system performance (e.g., that the average system speeds do
not significantly drop off due to occasional sag in train voltage). For this purpose, it may be valuable to
determine probabilistic train voltages to establish relative portions of time during which train voltages are
within different voltage ranges to estimate overall reduction in vehicle performance.
4.5 Running rail-to-ground voltages
Running rail-to-ground voltages should be compared against traction power system performance criteria
limits.
4.6 Contingency analysis
Traction power systems are generally expected to provide reliable service under a multitude of conditions.
Failures or outages of equipment should not generally result in significant interruption of service. It
therefore is important for the designers of traction power systems and components to realistically and
accurately accommodate such conditions.
Contingency analysis can begin with an effort to itemize expected troublesome conditions. Originating
conditions can be classified as to expected likelihood and duration. For each such condition, the allowable
traction power system response can be defined.
Examples of failure/outage conditions, or aberrant operational conditions, are the following (note that
multiple conditions can be combined into one contingency simulation depending on the particular
railroad/agency’s requirements):
⎯ Failure of one or more traction power system components (e.g., a de-energized traction
transformer, or a track feeder breaker in a not-closable condition)
⎯ Loss of a utility feeder (or losses of multiple utility feeders)
⎯ Complete de-energization of one (or more) substation(s) (e.g., during maintenance). It is important
to distinguish between power loss in which a substation’s bus does not provide power but serves to
equalize voltages on the contact conductors, as opposed to a power loss in which track feeder
breakers are open.
⎯ Unexpected bunching of trains in a track area, leading to highly localized system loading
⎯ Special operations (e.g., increased service conditions due to special events)
Examples of response limits to such conditions might include the following:

NOTE—These examples are generally unrelated to the specific examples provided above.
20
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
⎯ No impact on traction power system performance

⎯ Reduced voltage to trains with (or without) a concurrent reduction in system performance (e.g.,
reduction in acceleration, train consist, or speed, or increase in system headway)
⎯ Temporary allowance for operation of equipment at a higher-than-normal operating condition (e.g.,
operation for limited time of cables at temperatures above nominal rated temperature)
⎯ Establishment of physical time limit(s) for operation with the aberrant operating conditions
⎯ Avoid simultaneous train starts
These statements then constitute a significant part of the design criteria for the traction power system and
can be considered as part of a strict reliability analysis.
4.7 Substation rating and placement
The determination of required size (ratings) and locations for substations involves many tradeoffs between
often conflicting requirements. To a limited degree, an increase in substation quantity can compensate for
insufficient substation capacity, and an increase in substation capacity can compensate for insufficient
substation quantities.
The construction cost of increased substation capacity is generally much less than the cost of increased
substation quantity, so most system designs will attempt to provide for larger individual substation ratings
in order to maximize substation spacing. However, this approach quickly leads to diminishing returns, and
substation spacings will generally approach a design maximum that is strongly correlated to voltage drop
limits. Longer substation spacings will also promote higher track-to-ground voltages and greater stray
currents. Other requirements (e.g., real estate availability) may also dictate specific substation locations.
4.7.1 Rating of substations
Considerations in determining the electrical rating (electrical size) of individual substations include the
following:
⎯ RMS load: The substation RMS load over a predetermined time frame (often a peak rush period)
must be evaluated against overall substation capacity.
⎯ Overload rating: Peak equipment loading, such as during multiple train accelerations, should be
evaluated against equipment rated overload capabilities (e.g., heavy traction rating, or extra heavy
traction rating).
4.7.2 Placement of substations
Placement of substations is likely to involve consideration of many factors, including:
⎯ Site specific constraints: Availability, quality, and reliability of utility feeders, land availability,
maintenance vehicle access, and architectural/civil issues can all influence comparative evaluations
of different substation locations.
⎯ Load determination and substation ratings: Loads at substations will vary depending on the
physical location of the substation(s) with respect to grades, curves, speed limits, passenger
stations, adjacent substation locations, etc.
⎯ System performance: Specific locations may improve certain aspects of system performance. For
example, some substation locations may be preferred over other locations because they are closer to
21
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
peak loads (e.g., accelerating trains) that are served, and therefore result in less voltage drop in the
OCS/rails to the trains and/or lower rail-to-ground voltages.
⎯ Multiple functionality: Special trackwork (e.g., switches or crossovers) in an electrified rail transit
system generally require dedicated electrical switching devices and controls. These switching
devices can be part of passive control units (e.g., tie breaker stations or switching stations) or they
can be the feeder breakers at substations.
⎯ Design criteria: Specific criteria requirements (including contingency analysis)
4.7.3 Redundancy
Redundancy should be considered in design when establishing substation ratings and locations. For
example, a transit property may require that train operations be maintained (either at normal full load, or at
some prescribed reduced operating capacity) in the event of the loss of any one piece of traction power
substation equipment, or loss of multiple equipment units, or complete loss of one or more traction power
substations. These criteria will likely result in increased loads (both RMS and short time overloads) on
remaining in-service traction power equipment or adjacent in-service substations, and will have significant
impact on determination of substation location(s) and rating(s).
4.8 Examples of temporary or permanent mitigation strategies
The following is a list of possible mitigation measures to correct substandard voltage or current rating
conditions for either temporary or permanent situations:
⎯ Increase headways (temporary)

⎯ Shorten trains (both temporary and permanent)
⎯ Lower speed or acceleration (temporary)
⎯ Energy storage substations (permanent)
⎯ Temporary substations (temporary)
⎯ Facility or equipment upgrades (permanent)
⎯ Wayside temporary jumpers (temporary)
⎯ Feeder or conductor upgrades (permanent)
⎯ Route or operational restrictions (e.g., at turnbacks) (temporary)
⎯ Avoidance of simultaneous starts (both temporary and permanent)
⎯ Transformer tap changes (temporary)
⎯ Reduce substation spacings (permanent)
⎯ Reduce transformer impedance (to improve voltage regulation) (permanent)
22
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Annex A
(informative)
Field validation of train operations and wayside network modeling
A.1 Introduction
This annex describes general guidelines for conducting an effort to validate a simulation effort to compare
simulation output data against field measurements. Such an effort may be considered to be of value by the
transit property, or others. If such a validation effort is desired, then the parties involved should refine and
expand on these guidelines to establish a more definitive effort.
This annex does not address the initial validation of simulation software that should be performed during
software development. The responsibility for initial verification and validation of software lies with the
original software developer and/or the software user as part of sound systems and software engineering
practices, and is not addressed in this annex. 16 This annex addresses only supplemental validation of the
process of applying the software and conducting an analysis for an individual transit system. 17
A.2 Field verification
A validation should be conducted as a joint and collaborative effort involving the organization performing
the simulation, the transit property, and the party reviewing the results. 18
A validation effort can require considerable commitment of manpower and resources from both the
consultant and the transit property to be of value. The extent of the required validation effort should be
agreed to early in the simulation/modeling effort and be subject to periodic re-evaluation and refinement.
The validation effort should be documented in writing.
The field validation process consists of measurement of parameters on the transit property’s operating
system (for controlled non-revenue test conditions and/or for known in-service operating conditions) and
comparison of the measured parameters against output data from the modeling/software simulation.
Subsequent adaptation of the core simulation software, revision of the simulation input data followed by re-
simulation, and/or re-interpretation of the simulation output data can be performed by the software user
until an acceptance or rejection of the simulation process is made by the reviewer and the transit authority.
Any such acceptance by the transit authority would only be a conditional acceptance of the modeling
process for the intended purpose, but would not constitute a blanket acceptance by the transit authority of
subsequent use or application of the software used during the validation effort. Furthermore, the acceptance
by the transit authority could be withdrawn in the event of subsequent discovery of significant inaccuracies
or other deficiencies in the software or process.
Comparison of simulation results against measured data for the purpose of validation can be subject to
certain pitfalls:
16
IEEE Std 1012 [B28]. While portions of IEEE Std 1012 are referenced for information within this document, it is not the intent of
this document to require conformance with IEEE Std 1012.
17
Hovever, validation of the software application process here might also include limited re-validation of the software, such as (a)
verification of software output data against that of another software package that is already considered to be of adequate quality for the
intended function, with comparable input data sets, or (b) comparison of software output data against results of manual calculations.
Either method requires that a suitable range of test cases be established. Both methods may also require that the software be capable of
producing intermediate data printouts that allow for checking/verification of individual subroutines within the software.
18
The reviewing party can be the transit property.
23
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
⎯ Uncertainties or variabilities in operations that cannot be predicted nor simulated in advance will
generally contribute to differences between measurements vs. simulation output data. 19 It is
difficult to separate the effects of these discrepancies from other differences arising from actual
deficiencies in the software.
⎯ The cost in time, materials, electrical energy, and personnel resources to conduct instrumented tests
may dictate that (a) the instrumented tests be of very limited duration and scope, (b) the tests be
conducted on a system that is less chaotic than would be experienced during peak period revenue
operation (perhaps operating during non-revenue periods), and/or (c) the tests be conducted on a
system operating at reduced operations levels compared to the ultimate system that will be
modeled.
Considering these difficulties, the following test program is suggested.
a) First, instrument a single train to measure energy consumption and power consumption (at the
rails/OCS interface) and operate the train on the transit system (either during non-revenue or
revenue periods). Make measurements of station-to-station runtimes (in seconds) for comparison
against output data from simulations. Conduct simulations concurrently with tests. Make
comparisons between measured system performance and simulated results. Example metrics to be
compared are:
1) Average energy consumption for individual station-to-station runs
2) Individual station-to-station runtimes
3) Power consumption vs. time
4) Peak power consumption
Resources permitting, validation can optionally proceed to a more involved level.
b) Secondly, instrument wayside traction power substations (as many as possible, subject to financial
and other constraints) for collection of electrical and other performance data. Conduct simulations
concurrently with tests. Make comparisons between measured system performance and simulated
results. Example metrics to be compared are:
1) Average power consumption at individual substations
2) RMS loads on selected wayside distribution system components and equipment
3) Schedules of operation and/or headways 20
4) Train voltages and line currents
5) Station-to-station runtimes
Any validation effort should include effort to resolve inconsistencies between measured data vs. output data
from simulations.
The determination of actual metrics to be assessed in the validation effort, and the allowable deviations
between measured data vs. simulation output data, should be established jointly between the consultant and
the transit property. It may not be possible to establish allowable acceptance limits for accuracy of
simulations in advance.
The validation effort should be documented in report(s) as agreed upon between the consultant and the
transit property.
19
Examples might include variations in station-to-station runtimes or station dwell time (passenger boarding) that cannot be explained
despite operation with automatic train control and (perhaps) a known passenger load.
20
The headway or schedule of operations for trains may be a metric that the transit property will need to provide to the consultant to
be utilized as input data for the validation simulation effort.
24
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
A.3 Organizational structure and roles of validation participants
The observation, instrumentation, measurement, and collection of real-world data on the transit system for
utilization in the validation effort will necessarily require technical, managerial, and financial support. 21
Managerial and financial support will be provided by the transit property. The preferred source for
technical support is also from the transit property but can be provided by the consultant if necessary.
It is recommended that the validation effort occur according to the definition of integrated validation as
described in Annex C of IEEE Std 1012-2005 [B28] (with the consultant operating in the role of the
development organization, and the transit property operating in the role of integrated IV and V
organization). This approach recognizes the possible benefits of, but does not mandate, technical
independence between the development organization and the integrated IV and V organization.
21
Refer to IEEE Std 1012 [B28], Table C.1.
25
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Annex B
(informative)
Contents of typical report on train operations and wayside network

modeling
The following is a summary description of the contents of a typical simulation report. This guide suggests
the following format for reports:
Report cover/title page (including task identification, client, and date of report)
Table of Contents
Executive Summary (including overall management-level description of findings and conclusions)
The executive summary should include a brief description stating the purpose of the
analysis and the intended outcome (e.g., (a) to define traction power system requirements
to serve a new system or to facilitate operation at a higher service level, or (b) to
determine service levels that can be met with an existing system). The executive summary
should also provide an overview of the conclusions reached via analysis.
Introduction (describing purpose of report and issues/questions addressed)
The introduction should provide a complete description of the process through which the
scope of work was developed. If prior reports/analyses dealt with similar issues, they can
be referenced here.
Assumptions and Criteria
The underlying data applicable to the modeling effort related to operations levels, failure
criteria, etc. To the extent that specific design criteria standards of the transit property
are applicable, they should be stated or referenced here. Operations and criteria should
include a complete description of the relevant technical parameters and assumptions that
have been utilized in modeling and analysis.
Results and Discussion (presentation of technical findings)
This section should include technical description of the output parameters that were
developed during the analysis, and their impact on final determinations made under the
study.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions and recommendations should provide a more detailed description of the

final recommendations (compared to the description in the Executive Summary).
Appendices (Charts, graphs, tables, input and output data as appropriate)
Appendices should include listing of relevant input data used in analysis (if input data
has not otherwise been documented as data of record), or references to relevant
previously published or documented items. Output data from simulations and analysis
should be reproduced (condensed if and as necessary) to allow for review by the reader
to follow the process by which final recommendations have been made.
26
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Annex C
(informative)
Detailed input parameter list for dc system analysis

Table C.1 provides a detailed list of input parameters for dc system analysis, including consideration of
vehicle performance. Not all of these parameters are necessarily required for any given analysis:
Table C.1—Parameters list for dc system analysis

Item Description of data required Example or comments
1 Plan and profile of the track route, including Starting from passenger stations uses considerable energy;
proposed passenger stations and passenger station locations, as well as grades and
curves (speed restrictions), largely dictate the locations of
maximum energy use.
Stationing of switch points, platform ends, beginning and
ends of curves, etc., and of traction power facilities should
be identified.
2 Train voltages: The list to the left shows, in order from highest to lowest,
Maximum tolerated the voltages that are often defined in traction power
Maximum under regenerative braking engineering. Not all voltages are applicable to all transit
Unloaded voltage of power supply agencies.
Nominal voltage of power supply (i.e., at
100% load)
Lowest voltage for specified or required
tractive effort
Diminished tractive effort (possibly several
points)
Lowest allowable operating voltage for
propulsion
Undervoltage cutout of vehicle
27
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Table C.1, continued

3 Rail-to-earth voltages Touch and step potentials are a safety concern. There are
Max under normal operating conditions no U.S. standards, but 50 V to 70 V is often cited as a
Max under defined contingency operation design goal for normal operating conditions, and 70 V to
Track leakage resistances are needed to 100 V as a design goal for contingency conditions with
compute this substations out of service. IEC 62128 [B23] specifies this
potential as a function of time. Refer to 3.2.7.5.
Track leakage resistance varies with the types of track
construction and with the weather. The maximum
resistance values are used to determine the rail-to-earth
voltages. Representative values:
New direct fixation track: 1000 ohms to 1500 ohms –
304.8 track m (1000 track ft)
Aging direct fixation track: 500 ohms to 1000 ohms –
304.8 track m (1000 track ft).
Dirty direct fixation track: 50 ohms to 250 ohms – 304.8
track m (1000 track ft)
Timber tie special track work 250 ohms to 500 ohms –
304.8 track m (1000 track ft)
Any type of wet track - 2 ohms to 10 ohms- 304.8 track m
(1000 track ft)
Note that track leakage resistances are often, but
incorrectly, spoken of using terminology such as “X ohms
per 1000 track m (ft).” The “per” is improper here
because it suggests that the total resistance increases with
track length. A longer length of track will result in lower
total resistance, measured from the track section to
ground.
4 Locations of traction power facilities These need to be defined in terms of the stationing of the
Traction power substations connection points to the OCS or contact rail and the
dc: Switching stations (a/k/a circuit breaker running rails as well as a cabling distance from the actual
house, tie breaker station, paralleling station) TPSS location to the railway.
Often, the objective of the engineer’s work is to determine
where traction power facilities need to be placed in terms
of electrical performance, or to verify adequate traction
power system performance when the locations of the
facilities are determined by available real estate or other
factors. This will be an iterative process.
5 Speed limits and signal design At any point on the railroad, the speed limit is the lower
of: (1) any applicable law, as may be the case for street
running (2) the capability of the vehicle (3) braking
distance considering train control and station stops (4)
track limits, especially curves. Minimum end-to-end run
time requires making maximum possible speed all along
the way, but accelerations due to speed limit changes can
have a dramatic effect on total energy consumption.
6 Design headway and consists station dwell
times
7 Vehicle weights See 2.1.
8 Vehicle dimensions, including frontal area and Train resistance is an important factor in energy use;
rotational portion aerodynamic wind resistance becomes particularly
significant at higher speeds.
9 Tractive effort curves A curve showing tractive effort as a function of speed for
the vehicle is necessary to model the train performance.
Tractive effort at speeds above initial start will generally
be reduced with diminishing voltage, so a family of
curves is used to describe the performance of the vehicle.
10 Acceleration rates, adhesion data 1.341 m/sec2 (3 mphps) is often specified as the
maximum acceleration rate
11 Braking effort curves, braking rates for friction, Service braking is often specified as 0.67 m/sec2 (1.5
resistive, regenerative, and blended modes mphps), with emergency braking of 1.117 m/sec2 to 1.341
m/sec2 (2.5 mphps to 3 mphps).
28
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012

12 Regenerative braking The use of regenerative braking can return substantial
energy to the line. A net reduction in purchased energy of
10% to 30% is often found when regenerative braking is
fully deployed. Shorter headways and more frequent stops
result in percentages toward the higher end of the range.
In addition to the simple savings in money, regenerative
braking will substantially reduce the heat rejected to the
atmosphere, which is of particular value in tunnel
operation, as this makes for a far more comfortable
environment in underground stations.
Also refer to 3.2.4.
13 Vehicle current or power limits
14 Overall mechanical efficiency Considering tractive effort of the vehicle vs. power in at
the pantograph or contact rail shoe, this is often in the
80% to 85% range.
15 Auxiliary power requirements The vehicle auxiliary power system provides energy to
lights, heating/ventilating/air conditioning, and other
systems. These are usually considered “always on” for
modeling purposes, and in fact will comprise the vast
majority of the load for substations feeding yards and
shops. 30 kW to 100 kW per car is normal and is
generally related to the length of the car. Resistance
heating usually draws more power than air conditioning,
so in cold climates, the peak load will occur in winter,
while in hot climates, the peak load will occur in summer.
16 Traction power schematic diagram, impedances Tentative ratings of equipment are necessary to
of traction power system commence modeling but are likely to be refined as the
design progresses.
For dc substations, the following values are often found:
Utility supply at 12.5 kV to 34.5 kV
Rectifier ratings of 0.5 MW to 5 MW (light- and heavy-
rail systems; streetcar systems use smaller).
Transformer-rectifier voltage regulation of 4% to 6%
Typical values for conductor impedances are given in

Annex D.
A return diagram is useful to show where double-rail and
single-rail returns are used (if mixed), where isolation in
the return circuit is employed (i.e., yard-to-mainline
junctions, line-to-line interchanges if applicable)
Lengths and impedances of track-to-substation feeder
cable should be defined.
Track-to-track crossbonds, where used, should be placed
and sized.
Supplementary (parallel) positive and negative feeder
cables should be placed and sized.
17 Utility voltage considerations Utilities normally expect to deliver voltage to the
customer’s service entrance within ±5% of nominal (see
ANSI C84.1 [B1]). The modeler may wish to evaluate the
performance of the traction power system with the utility
voltage at its low normal limit, as with passive equipment
(diode rectifiers for dc systems) this low utility voltage
will pass through the traction power system. It may also
be worth considering the utility voltage at its high normal
limit if it is found that regenerative braking is being
limited by high line voltage.
29
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012

18 Contingency design Under what failure conditions is the traction power
system expected to deliver normal, or fairly normal,
performance? What degradation in performance is
acceptable under first and second contingencies?
Many transit operations are designed so that any one
substation may be off line without overloading the
adjacent substations past their short term ratings. Off line
may mean that only the power supply has been lost while
switchgear remains in service to act as an equalizing bus
between the tracks. Off line can also mean that the
switchgear is out of service, leaving no connection
between the tracks at the substation location. The
difference between these two interpretations of off line
can be significant.
19 Wayside loads Wayside loads powered from the traction power system
often include:
Switch heaters
Contact rail heaters
20 Track leakage characteristics This is of concern for rail-to-earth voltage calculations
and determination of stray current.
30
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Annex D
(informative)
Typical feeder characteristics

The following are typical data, or sources of data, for feeder characteristics applicable to modeling of
traction power systems.
D.1 Conductor characteristics of running rails and contact rails
Jones [B32] cites a typical per-unit-length resistance of 8 micro-ohms per foot for 115 RE steel running rail
in dc traction power applications, and a per-unit-length resistance of 1.4 micro-ohms per foot for aluminum
contact rail as used in New York’s Second Avenue Subway project.
Skin effect parameters for steel running rails are provided in Experimental Researches on the Skin Effect of
Steel Rails [B33].
Values of dc resistance for various rail types used in Europe are provided in Table 3.2 of Contact Lines for
Electric Railways [B34].
An analytical method for calculation of impedance of non-ferrous contact rails is provided in “Modeling of
Frequency-Dependent Impedance of the Third Rail Used in Traction Power Systems” [B52].
Extensive data describing resistance and inductance of rails and OCS systems for dc traction power systems
is provided in “Direct Current Coordination for Electrified Transit” [B48].
D.2 Inductance of running rails and contact rails (dc traction power systems)
Inductance of rails and OCS systems in dc traction power systems is provided in “Direct Current
Coordination for Electrified Transit” [B48].
Kennelly, Achard, and Dana [B33] provide values as follows: For 100 lb/yd running rails, 1.31 μH/m to
1.86 μH/m; for 69.3 lb/yd and 86.5 lb/yd contact rails, 1.75 μH/m to 2.52 μH/m.
Helfrich, Hall, and Reynolds [B17] provide values for mining systems with trolley wires: 2.03 μH/m to
0.947 μH/m.
Tylavsky [B51] provides values for mining systems with trolley wires: Trolley feeder, 1.70 μH/m. Trolley,
1.71 μH/m. Rails, 1.66 μH/m.
Hill and Carpenter [B18] provide values of 0.635 μH/m to 0.644 μH/m for rail at 50 Hz.
Hill and Carpenter [B19] provide values by FEM analysis (differential mode): running rail inductance @
50 Hz, 1.96 μH/m theory, 2.83 μH/m experimental; contact rail inductance @ 50 Hz, 1.32 μH/m theory,
1.95 μH/m experimental.
Fracchia, Hill, Pozzobon, and Sciutto [B14] provide values (per Figure 2 of [B14]) of Ls = 0.08 μH/m, L1
= 1.01 μH/m, L2 = 0.055 μH/m.
Hill, Fracchia, Pozzobon, and Sciutto [B20] provide values of system resistance and inductance, as varying
functions of frequency.
31
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Mariscotti, and Pozzobon [B39] provide measured values of resistance and inductance, for 1.5 m and 0.5 m
rail separation, as functions of current.
Wang and Wang [B52] provide values for steel third rail of 0.246 μH/m @ 1 Hz to 0.1948 μH/m at 105 Hz.
Fracchia, Mariscotti, and Pozzobon [B15] provide values for inductance of system of 1.37 μH/m, r = 0.5
mΩ/m, c = 20 pF/m, for OCS 3 kV dc system.
D.3 DC resistance of typical OCS and feeder conductors
Typical dc conductor characteristics for OCS conductors and feeder conductors can be found in ASTM B1
[B3], ASTM B2 [B4], ASTM B3 [B5], ASTM B8 [B6], ASTM B9 [B7], ASTM B47 [B8], ASTM B105
[B9], and ASTM B116 [B10].
32
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Annex E
(informative)
Tabulation of train voltage limits for dc traction power systems

Table E.1 provides a tabulation of train voltage limits on various transit properties, or from industry
guides/standards. This table is provided for information only and is not intended to establish recommended
values for new or existing system design. While the information contained in Table E.1 is believed by the
authors of this document to be accurate, this information should be verified before application in new
design or analysis efforts.
Table E.1—Train voltage limits for dc systems

Traction power
Substation Train voltage limits
system design
voltage (volts) (volts)
System nominal voltage (volts)
requirements
(delivered
voltage to trains;
Miniumu-full performance
Maximum (regeneration)
minimum)
Minimum-reduced
(volts)
Transit agency or
performance
100% Load
Type
guide/standard
No-load
All equipment in
conditions
Outage
service
PAac, Pittsburgh OCS 650 690 650 750 450 300 525 525
Sound Transit,
Seattle OCS 1500 1590 1500 1800 1500 900
MTA, Baltimore -
Light Rail OCS 750 832 750 980 600 400
St. Louis CC
Metrolink LRT OCS 800 900 525
400 to
CTA, Chicago 3rd R 600 640 600 750 550 500 450 400
CATS, Charlotte OCS 750 795 750 900 525 525 525
DART, Dallas OCS 845 845 845 950 525 600 525
RTD, Denver OCS 825 870 825 950 600 525
MATA, Memphis OCS 600 640 600 650 350 450 400
VMR, Phoenix OCS 850 850 850 900 600 525
RTD, Sacramento OCS 800 850 800 900 525 525 525
BART San
Francisco 3rd R 1000 1150 850 750
500 to
LIRR 3rd R 750 795 750 800 500 400
33
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Table E.1, continued

NYCT 3rd R 662 625 450
Miami 3rd R 700 550 450
SEPTA
Philadelphia 3rd R 650 750
Minneapolis HPO OCS 795 750 900 600 525
San Jose LRT OCS 800 900 525
Salt Lake City
TRAX OCS 800 750 600 525
Houston
SE/EE/NC
extensions OCS 825 786 900 750 500 600 525
WMATA 475 or
(Washington, DC) 3rd R 700 742 700 650 430 525 450
Both
OCS
&
TTC, Toronto 3rd R 570 607 570 720 500 350
NJT, Hudson-
Bergen OCS 750 795 750 900 525 525
IEEE Std 16 [B24]

720 600 400
900 750 500
1800 1500 1000
3600 3000 2000
IEC 60850 [B22]

600 800 400 400 400
750 1000 500 500 500
1500 1950 1000 1000 1000
3000 3900 2000 2000 2000
AREA Manual for

Railway
Engineering
Volume 3 [B1]
recommended
voltages
750 975 525 450
1500 1950 1050 900
3000 3900 2100 1800
34
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Annex F
(informative)
Tabulation of rail-to-ground voltage limits for dc traction power systems

Table F.1 provides a tabulation of rail-to-ground voltage limits on various transit properties. This table is
provided for information only and is not intended to establish recommended values for new or existing
system design. While the information contained in Table F.1 is believed by the authors of this document to
be accurate, this information should be verified before application in new design or analysis efforts.
Table F.1—Rail-to-ground voltage limits for dc traction power systems

Is rail-to-ground Notes regarding
Are negative
limit established as Rail-to-ground negative grounding
System/type grounding devices
a system design voltage limit notes device (NGD)
applied?
parameter or limit? application
WMATA Not to exceed 50 V
Washington, DC No under normal No —
(heavy rail) operations
Located at substations.
Trigger setpoint of 50
V-100 V; delay of 0.1
s-0.6 s. Commutation
Phoenix East Valley via reverse bias. NGD
Not known — Yes
VMR (light rail) adjustment for
sustained current
(adjustable 5 A-50 A,
15 s-150 s) results in
substation lockout.
Maximum rail-to-
Salt Lake City UT
Yes ground voltage 50 No —
(light rail)
Vdc
System capable of
NGD to automatically
maintaining the
connect the running
negative rail
rail to the substation
Pittsburgh (light rail) Yes potential rise to Yes
ground bus if the
within 70 V under
voltage rises above a
substation outage
preset value of 35 V
condition
BARTD San
Francisco CA (heavy Not known — Yes Set at 80 V
rail)
Miami Dade County
No — Yes Set at 50 V
(heavy rail)
Substations partially
Chicago CTA (heavy Rarely exceeds 50 diode grounded via
No No
rail) V utility drainage (stray
current) bonds
35
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Table F.1, continued

Back-to-back thyristors.
Initial (early phase)
construction provided
setpoint of 52 V; currently
set to 62 V to avoid
nuisance operation. If
thyristor current exceeds
Initial design limit established
DART Dallas TX 700 amps, a spring loaded
Yes at 50 V; later revised to 72 V Yes
(light rail) mechanical switch is
(Phase II buildout)
closed to bypass the
thyristor units. The bypass
switch can only be
manually opened. Bypass
switch rating is 750 amps
continuous, 15 000 amps
for 0.3 s.
Sacramento CA (light Initial design criteria limit
Yes Not known —
rail) was set at 50 V
VTA San Jose CA
Not known — No —
(light rail)
Maximum track-to-earth
Denver CO RTD
Yes potentials do not exceed 50 V Not known —
(light rail)
during normal operations
MTA/LIRR ESA
potentials do not exceed 75 V
New York City Yes No —
(goal) during normal
(heavy rail)
operation.
Minneapolis MN
Yes potentials do not exceed 50 V Not known —
HPO (light rail)
during normal operations.
Exposition LRT Los Running rail touch potential
Angeles CA (light Yes below 45 V dc during normal Yes
rail) operation.
Located at substations.
Back-to-back thyristors.
Trigger setpoint of 50 V
(adjustable); no intentional
time delay. Commutation
Baltimore MD (light via reverse bias. NGD
Not known — Yes
rail) adjustment for sustained
current (set at 35 A,
adjustable time delay of
0.1 s-102 s with 15 s
initial adjustment) results
in substation lockout.
Baltimore MD (heavy
Not known — No —
rail)
Mechanical contactor is
provided; closes at
approximately 50 V and
stays closed for
Hudson-Bergen line; approximately 10 s. Three
Yes Limited to 50 V Yes
NJ immediately consecutive
close operations result in
system lockup (contactor
closed permanently) with
alarm to central control.
36
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Annex G
(informative)
Rolling load calculations

This IEEE guide makes reference to rolling calculations of load over time. Rolling load calculations are
suggested as a method of evaluating changing electrical loads on equipment, and correlating those loads to
changes in equipment temperature, to facilitate predictions as to whether or not limiting equipment
temperatures will be exceeded.
The rolling load calculation consists of exponential smoothing of load data, performed as follows: Assume
that a wayside system element is subjected to loading and that the loading is modeled as discrete loads,
each lasting for time interval of Δt. The value of Δt should be significantly shorter than the thermal time
constant Δ of the wayside system element:
Δt << τ
For the purposes of this explanation, the discrete load values are represented as:
L1 load from time 0 to Δt

L2 load from time Δt to 2Δt
L3 load from time 2Δt to 3Δt
etc.
We now calculate exponentially smoothed data, as terms S1, S2, S3, S4, …. The first term is S1 = L1.
Subsequent terms are calculated as
Sn+1 = α(Ln) + (1-α)Sn
Where
α = Δt / τ
The resulting data is smoothed data for the corresponding thermal time constant.
As an example, consider a wayside system element with a thermal time constant of τ = 300 seconds, for
which per-unit load values L1, L2, L3, L4, … are known. Each load value represents a load which lasts for 60
s (=Δt).
α = Δt / τ = 60/300 = 0.2
Also, assume that the system element is modeled as a resistive element, for which heat loss is proportional
to L2. If we assume that the steady-state temperature rise above ambient for the element is proportional to
steady-state heat loss, then we can assign heat loss values as H1, H2, H3, H4, … where Hn = K * (Ln)2.
Assume that K=1.0; also assume the following load values: 22
22
In other words, maximum allowable steady-state temperature rise is reached when per-unit load is established at 1.0.
37
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Table G.1—Sample load values

L1 0.1 L6 1.2 L11 0.8 L16 0.4 L21 0.9
L2 0.3 L7 1.4 L12 0.9 L17 0.6 L22 0.9
L3 0.5 L8 1.5 L13 0.6 L18 1.1 L23 1.1
L4 0.7 L9 1.6 L14 0.2 L19 1.4 L24 1.0
L5 1.0 L10 1.2 L15 0.3 L20 1.1 L25 1.0
The smoothed per-unit temperature rise values are then computed as
H1 = L12 = 0.01
H2 = 0.2(L2)2 + (1-0.2)H1 = 0.2(0.3)2 + 0.8(0.01) = 0.026
H3 = 0.2(L3)2 + (1-0.2)H2 = 0.2(0.5)2 + 0.8(0.026) = 0.0708
Etc.
Shown below is a graph of Ln:
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Load (per unit)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Time interval
and Hn:
1.6
1.4
1.2
Temperature rise (per unit)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Time interval
From the graph of Ln vs. time, it can be inferred that the per-unit load limit is exceeded during intervals 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, and 23; limiting temperature rise (Hn) will be exceeded during time intervals 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, and 13.
38
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Note that this analysis is greatly simplified for the purpose of explanation. A typical traction
power simulation might have time intervals of individual duration lasting only a few seconds
(versus the 60 s interval presented here) and might cover a total time period of several hours or
more (versus the 300 s time duration presented here.)
39
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
Annex H
(informative)
Bibliography
Bibliographical references are resources that provide additional or helpful material but do not need to be
understood or used to implement this standard. Reference to these resources is made for informational use
only.
[B1] American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) Manual for
Railway Engineering, Volume 3: Infrastructure and Passenger.
[B2] ANSI C84.1, Electric Power Systems and Equipment—Voltage Ratings (60 hertz).
[B3] ASTM B1, Standard Specification for Hard-Drawn Copper Wire.
[B4] ASTM B2, Standard Specification for Medium-Drawn Copper Wire.
[B5] ASTM B3, Standard Specification for Soft or Annealed Copper Wire.
[B6] ASTM B8, Standard Specification for Concentric-Lay-Stranded Copper Conductors, Hard, Medium-
Hard, or Soft.
[B7] ASTM B9, Standard Specification for Bronze Trolley Wire.
[B8] ASTM B47, Standard Specification for Copper Trolley Wire.
[B9] ASTM B105, Standard Specification for Hard-Drawn Copper Alloy Wires for Electric Conductors.
[B10] ASTM B116, Standard Specification for Figure-9 Deep-Grooved and Figure-8 Copper Trolley Wire
for Industrial Haulage.
[B11] De Koranyi, L., “Design of dc Power Supply for Rapid Transit Systems,” IEEE Transactions on
Industry and General Applications, March/April 1965.
[B12] Dietz, James H., “Integrating New Railcars into Existing Traction Power Systems,” Proceedings of
the American Public Transit Association 2010 APTA Rail Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
[B13] Electric Power Research Institute, “Increased Power Flow Guidebook” Final Report, November
2005.
[B14] Fracchia, M., Hill, R. J., Pozzobon, P., and Sciutto, G., “Accurate track modeling for fault current
studies on third-rail metro railways,” Proceedings of the 1994 ASME/IEEE Joint Railroad Conference,
1994 (in Conjunction with Area 1994 Annual Technical Conference), pp. 97-102, March 22-24, 1994.
[B15] Fracchia, M., Mariscotti, A., and Pozzobon, P., “Track and traction line impedance expressions for
deterministic and probabilistic voltage distortion analysis,” Proceedings of the Ninth International
Conference on Harmonics and Quality of Power, 2000, vol. 2, pp. 589-594, Oct. 1-4, 2000.
[B16] Hay, W. W., Railroad Engineering, 2nd Edition. New York: Wiley, 1982.
40
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
[B17] Helfrich, W. J., Hall, P. M., and Reynolds, R. L, “Time constants of direct current trolley systems,”
Proceedings of the Fifth West Virginia University Conference on Coal Mine Electrotechnology, pp. 9-1 to
9-13, September 1-13, 1980.
[B18] Hill, R. J., and Carpenter, D. C., “Determination of rail internal impedance for electric railway
traction system simulation,” IEEE Proceedings-B, vol. 138, no. 6, pp 311-321, November 1991.
[B19] Hill, R. J., and Carpenter, D. C., “Rail track distributed transmission line impedance and admittance:
theoretical modeling and experimental results,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 42, issue
2, pp. 225-241, May 1993.
[B20] Hill, R. J., Fracchia, M., Pozzobon, P., and Sciutto, G., “A frequency domain model for 3 kV dc
traction dc-side resonance identification,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1369-
1375, August 1995.
[B21] House, H. E., and Tuttle, P. D., “Current-Carrying Capacity of ACSR,” Power Apparatus and
Systems, Part III, Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, vol. 77, issue 3, pp. 1169-
1173, April 1958.
[B22] IEC 60850, Railway Applications—Supply Voltages of Traction Systems.
[B23] IEC 62128-1, Railway Applications—Final Installations—Part 1—Protective Provisions Relating to

Electrical Safety and Earthing.
[B24] IEEE Std 16, IEEE Standard for Electrical and Electronic Control Apparatus on Rail Vehicles.
[B25] IEEE Std 242, IEEE Recommended Practice for Protection and Coordination of Industrial and
Commercial Power Systems.
[B26] IEEE Std 399, IEEE Recommended Practice for Industrial and Commercial Power Systems
Analysis.
[B27] IEEE Std 738, IEEE Standard for Calculating the Current-Temperature of Bare Overhead
Conductors.
[B28] IEEE Std 1012, IEEE Standard for Software Verification and Validation.
[B29] IEEE Std C57.91, IEEE Guide for Loading Mineral-Oil-Immersed Transformers.
[B30] IEEE Std C57.92-1981, IEEE Guide for Loading Mineral-Oil-Immersed Power Transformers Up to
and Including 100 MVA with 55 °C or 65 °C Average Winding Rise.
[B31] IEEE Std C57.96, IEEE Guide for Loading Dry-Type Distribution and Power Transformers.
[B32] Jones, A. L., “A Comprehensive Short Circuit Analysis of a Low Voltage dc Traction Power
System,” Proceedings of the American Public Transit Association 2006 APTA Rail Conference, New
York.
[B33] Kennelly, A. E., Achard, F. H., and Dana, A. S., Experimental Researches on the Skin Effect of Steel
Rails, J. Franklin Institute, vol. 182, no. 2, pp. 135-190, August 1916.
[B34] Kiessling, Puschmann, and Schmieder, Contact Lines for Electric Railways, Munich: Publicis
Corporate Publishing, 2001, Table 3.2.
41
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
[B35] Kneschke, Hong, Natarajan, and Naqvi, “Impedance Calculations for Septa’s Rail Power
Distribution System,” Transactions of the 1995 ASME-IEEE Joint Railroad Conference.
[B36] Lanctot, E. K., Peterson, E. L., House, H. E., and Zobel, E. S., “Ice Build-up on Conductors of
Different Diameters,” Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Power Apparatus and
Systems, Part III, vol. 78, issue 4, pp. 1610-1614, December 1959.
[B37] Lin Guo-song and Li Qun-zhan, “Impedance Calculations for AT Power Traction Networks with
Parallel Connections,” Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering
Conference.
[B38] Mariscotti, A., and Pozzobon, P., “Resistance and Internal Inductance of Traction Rails at Power
Frequency: A Survey,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1069-1075, July
2004.
[B39] Mariscotti, A., and Pozzobon, P., “Measurement of the internal impedance of traction rails at 50
Hz,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 49, issue 2, pp. 294-299, April 2000.
[B40] Neher, J. H., and McGrath, M. H., “The Calculation of the Temperature Rise and Load Capability of
Cable Systems,” Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Power Apparatus and
Systems, Part III, vol. 76, October 1957.
[B41] Olmsted, L. M., “Safe Ratings for Overhead Line Conductors,” AIEE Transactions, vol. 62, issue
12, pp. 845-853, December 1943.
[B42] Pilo and Rouco, “A Reduced Representation of 2x25 kV Electrical Systems for High-Speed
Railways,” Proceedings of the 2003 ASME-IEEE Joint Railroad Conference, Chicago, IL.
[B43] Pozzobon, P., “Transient and Steady-State Short Circuit Currents in Rectifiers for dc Traction
Supply,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 47:4, New York: Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, November 1998.
[B44] Schurig, O. R., and Frick, C. W., “Heating and Current-carrying Capacity of Bare, Conductors for
Outdoor Service,” General Electric Review, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 141-156, March 1930.
[B45] Stell, R. W. B., “Cable Ampacity Tables for Direct Current Traction Power Systems,” Proceedings
of the American Public Transit Association 2005 Rapid Transit Conference.
[B46] Stell, R. W. B., “Cable Rating Considerations for Direct Current Traction Power Systems,”
Proceedings of the American Public Transit Association 2003 Rapid Transit Conference.
[B47] Stell, R. W. B., “Cost Effective Traction Power System Design: An Analytical Approach,”
Proceedings of the American Public Transit Association 1997 Rapid Transit Conference.
[B48] Stell, R. W. B., “Direct Current Coordination for Electrified Transit,” Proceedings of the American
Public Transit Association 1992 Rapid Transit Conference.
[B49] Stell, R. W. B., “Protection of Trolley and Messenger Wire from Thermal Damage Due to Short
Circuits,” Proceedings of the American Public Transit Association 1994 Rapid Transit Conference.
[B50] Steimel, A., Electric Traction—Motion Power and Energy Supply: Basics and Practical Experience.
Muinch: Oldenbourg Industrieverlag GmbH, 2007.
[B51] Tylavsky, D. J., “Track/trolley system transients,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol.
24, issue 4, pp. 672-681, July-Aug. 1988.
42
IEEE Std 1653.3-2012
[B52] Wang, Y. J., and Wang, J. H., “Modeling of Frequency-Dependent Impedance of the Third Rail
Used in Traction Power Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 750-755,
April 2000.
[B53] Zucker, M., “Thermal Rating of Overhead Line Wire,” AIEE Transactions, vol. 62, issue 7, pp. 501-
507, July 1943.
43

PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IEEE Guide for Rail Transit Traction

Power Systems Modeling

IEEE Vehicular Technology Society

IEEE Guide for Rail Transit Traction

Rail Transportation Standards Committee

Approved 5 December 2012

IEEE-SA Standards Board

Approved 30 September 2014

American National Standards Institute

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Copyright © 2013 by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

PDF: ISBN 978-0-7381-8075-5 STD98066

Comments on standards should be submitted to the following address:

Secretary, IEEE-SA Standards Board

Laws and regulations

Updating of IEEE documents

Michael Dinolfo, Chair

Roger M. Avery Mark Griffiths Gareth Rees

William Aycock Andrew Jones Gil Shultz

Richard H. Hulett, Chair

Satish Aggarwal Alexander Gelman Oleg Logvinov

Richard DeBlasio, DOE Representative

2. Definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations .................................................................................................. 2

3. Modeling and validation............................................................................................................................. 4

Annex D (informative) Typical feeder characteristics................................................................................. 31

Annex G (informative) Rolling load calculations........................................................................................ 37

Annex H (informative) Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 40

1.2.2 DC versus ac traction power systems

2. Definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations

AW0: The ready-to-run vehicle, without crew or passengers.

2.2 Acronyms and abbreviations

NGD Negative Grounding Device

OCS Overhead Contact System

RMS Root-mean-square (See 3.2.7.1)

3. Modeling and validation

3.1.1 Purpose of modeling

3.1.1.1 Quality of power delivered to trainsets

3.1.1.2 Overloading assessment of wayside equipment and feeders

3.1.1.3 Establishment of operational restrictions

3.1.1.4 Energy management

3.1.2 Baseline criteria

3.1.4 Commonalities between models

3.2 Train operations and wayside network modeling

3.2.2 Background and legacy modeling approaches

Modeling of operation according to specific civil alignment/route characteristics: Data is collected

3.2.4 Regenerative braking

3.2.5 Model time period and sampling interval

3.2.6 Input parameters

Input parameters for analysis include the following:

⎯ Information for train movement/performance simulation

3.2.7 Output parameters

3.2.7.1 Root-mean-square (RMS) loads

3.2.7.2 Average load data

3.2.7.3 Train voltages

3.2.7.4 Peak current

3.2.7.5 Running rails-to-ground voltages

3.3.1 Fault (short-circuit) modeling

a) To establish touch-and-step potentials for grounding system design

3.3.1.1 Types of faults

Table 1 categorizes the types of faults that need to be considered.

Table 1 —Types of faults

This type of fault is of

3.3.1.2 Performing the fault study