All - Boris is (of course) correct.  The lighting load is not
insignificant, but under normal conditions should be within the MG's
capacity.  The only time that the MG capacity might be exceeded is when
you apply full track brake.  When that occurs, then the battery will
come into play and pick up part of the load.  If you were to lose the
MG, then a full track brake application might be a bit weaker than with
the MG running.  On the Kawasaki cars, they run routine checks of the
battery by turning off the MA (now a converter) and apply the track
brake.  (only one step - full) Then you measure the voltage over time
to get an idea of how much battery capacity is remaining.  Even though
a battery has not failed, the capacity decreases over the years.  Don't
know what the original problem description was, but would appear
there's not a lot of understanding going on.

cheers,  Russ  

Are you suggesting, Boris, that the MG or MA set did not have a  
charging rate sufficient to cover the car's full load when in  
operation at night with all lights turned on?   That perhaps they  
simply used the original MG and superimposed all the additional load  
on the battery?

On Jan 4, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Boris Cefer wrote:

> This is not exactly true. The battery is not the main source of 32  
> V energy
> for car control etc. It is the MG set which provides the energy for  
> car
> control and the battery is being permanently charged to provide  
> sufficient
> capacity for emergency or when the control is then off and some low  
> voltage
> circuits are in use. This is probably why sometimes it is called  
> "storage
> battery".
> Adding further 32 V circuits will not only suck dry the battery at  
> a higher
> rate, but also the MG set will suffer overload and higher rate of  
> failures.
> I think they had a similar problem in Toronto when they converted  
> interior
> lights from 600 V to 32 V.
>
> B
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Holland" <prcopcc@p-r-co.com>
> To: "- 1714 PRCo__WP__JTC -" <pittsburgh-railways@dementia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:37 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: The "Light Rail ex-1600 1700s"
>
>
>> Generally when an electric / electronic part fails it is like a light
>> bulb    ----    working one minute, totally out the next.
>> Exceptions, yes, but this is the rule.
>> .
>> What you describe, Herb, is not failure of bad parts but Over Load of
>> the battery which is slowly // Not So Slowly being sucked dry!!!
>> Original PCC lighting was from the 600 overhead  --  go through an
>> insulator and the lights would flicker  --  lose the pole and the  
>> lights
>> went out.       Putting lighting and other additional items on a
>> battery, And  'Apparently'  the battery used for control circuits is
>> asking for trouble    ----    That's why the car went dead     
>> ----    it
>> was not failure of parts    ----    It  WAS  the fault of the  
>> designer
>> and  ({[pat]})   I-S  to blame!!!
>> .
>> The PCC accelerator also provides dynamic brakes  --  the  
>> accelerator is
>> operated by a 32 volt pilot motor which works off the battery  --   
>> when
>> the battery goes dry, so does control.       On an All-Electric, the
>> drums won't release as drums are spring applied, electrically  
>> released
>> By Battery!       Don't know how that is handled on an air car.
>> .
>> The problems you experienced with the ex-1601 series PCCs  
>> converted to
>> 177x+++ were created by  ({[pat]})  and were not inherent in the car
>> when under PRCo.       A separate battery should have been used,  
>> not the
>> control battery.
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> Jim___Holland





