Talk:Traction motor

I see someone is on their way to creating an article about asynchronous traction motors. That's good, but I believe that some ac traction motors are synchronous, driven by a variable- frequency drive. I *THINK* I've heard that this is the case with certain TGV generations.

Perhaps someone can chime-in with more details? (...or correct me?)

Atlant 20:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ancient siderod-coupled traction motors

A recent editor removed the language calling siderod-coupled traction motors "ancient", claimingthat they date into the 1950s. Is this true? certainly in North America, they were all gone from any mjor applications long before that; I'd guess near the turn of the century.

Opinions? Facts?

Atlant 13:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was me. I've seen photos of siderod equipped diesels from the 1950s on British railroads, which I don't consider ancient. slambo 14:49, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, I think I see where we may not be communicating. Although I didn't write it explicitly, the model I had in mind was of a single carbody-mounted traction motor which was then connected to body-mounted driving wheels in much the same way as on a steam locomotive. These did exist, but I really do think they were ancent history. I think you, on the other hand, are describing an arrangement where a single bogie-mounted traction motor is coupled to multiple wheelsets/axles in the same bogie through side rods.

Have I now got it right?

If so, I'll edit the language in the article to make clear what each of us meant. :-)

Atlant 15:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That could be (I haven't had a chance to research the mechanics behind these locos), but I would avoid the use of the term "ancient". To me, ancient connotes a time period of more than 1000 years ago. slambo 15:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Swedish Dm3 electrics use the one-big-motor and rod method; and are still working. Meggar 04:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"In the case of the TGV power units, each axle is driven by a motor mounted to the power unit's frame; a "tripod" drive allows a small amount of flexibility in the drive train allowing the trucks (bogies) to pivot."

Hello i would like point that this seams to apply to the motored trucks located right under the TGV power cars but, in all TGVs (exept "TGV pendulaire") there are two other motored trucks located under the first and the last passenger cars respectively, this is why the TGV pendulaire had to be coupled with a standard TGV to attain speeds higher than 220km/h(136mph) because, at that time alsthom did not developed motored trucks that could tilt. i wonder if these other motored trucks are powered by a "tripod" as well.

http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/p01.html

Vehicle electric motor

vehicle electric motor would treat car electric motors. --HybridBoy 19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the traction motor article is large enough that it warrants another to address cars. Besides, noone calls them "vehicle electric motor"s, we simply call them motors or traction motors. "Electric vehicle traction motors" would me more appropriate, but again this article doesn't need to be split as it's not large enough and it describes perfectly the topic that it covers. Thank you very much for discussing this with the community before simply creating that article! --D0li0 08:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good place to put a redirect that points here, though. --Atlant 11:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What Electric vehicle traction motor? Although we already have the Electric vehicle (all vehicles) and Battery electric vehicle (passenger vehicles) articles. So in that light perhaps it would be Battery electric vehicle traction motor? But I think the WP:R policy is to not add unnecessary redirects with names that people don't commonly use, but I'm not sure. --D0li0 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

definitions

Needed: a short one sentence definition for each of the terms: "power unit" and "truck". Rtdrury 21:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Even better than an in-line definition, we now have links to an entire article on each of these items. "truck" has been changed to "trucks (bogies)", and "power unit" has been changed to "power car" for consistency with the supplied reference. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Should control circuitry be other articles? Existing article totally inadequate.

Regarding railways: There are various types of traction motors and various ways of controlling them. It's a big topic. Diesel locomotives also regulate the diesel engine and should result in tracking the optimum trace on the Brake specific fuel consumption map of the engine. So the control of the traction motors must be coordinated with control of the diesel engine (all automatically of course). What about the field weakening circuitry? Also, there's the operation of the controllers (many non-US ones had 16 forward speeds). Variable voltage is used on AC locomotives with transformers, and power electronics can vary the AC voltage inverted from a DC supply. For rail locomotives I think at least 2 new articles are needed: one for diesels and another for electric. But I don't have time to do this.David S. Lawyer 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlawyer (talk • contribs)

why "water" cooling?

This should be called LIQUID cooling, not "water cooling". Water is just one possible substance. Ethylene glycol works. You can use alcohol, all kinds of other liquids, to serve a vast range of temperatures. If I wanted to write about one of these, am I supposed to do it on a page about "water cooling"? I never even hear anyone say "water cooling". An engine is either "air-cooled" or "liquid cooled". I've heard of "liquid cooled computers", but never "water cooled" ones. What about oil cooling? That ought to be part of liquid cooling, right along with water cooling. They are both liquids, and we don't need a separate article for every possible substance. Liquid cooling works the same, within a limited range of techniques. Circulating and radiating, direct evaporation, circulation and evaporation, and as a heat sink. Those are all forms of "liquid" (including water) cooling..45Colt 02:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC) .45Colt 02:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Traction motor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120204150932/http://www.associatedrewinds.com/english/deconstructingmotor.html to http://www.associatedrewinds.com/english/deconstructingmotor.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Motor types and control

This section states that "Parts of a rail system might use different voltages, with higher voltages in long runs between stations and lower voltage near stations where slower operation would be useful." Has this ever happened? This appears to me to be idealistic speculation and not fact. Since Wikipedia aims to state facts, it should probably be removed. Chris.Bristol (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It happened pretty much from day one. Look at the US urban terminii, where there was an overhead inter-city system, and a third rail within the urban approach tunnels. Third rails are all limited to 650V DC or thereabouts, as there's not enough clearance for much more. The New Haven EP-1 or EP-2 would be perhaps the best example, through to the EP-5 of the mid 1950s: 11kV 25hz AC on the overhead, 660V DC on the third rail. The New York Central S-Motors were similar, although only used the DC system, but from either a third rail or a miniature pantograph. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

As you say, there are many examples of dual systems, which are used for various reasons. However his statement goes further: "higher voltages in long runs between stations and lower voltage near stations where slower operation would be useful", it suggests that the differing voltages would be related to the desired speed of the train. Your references do not appear to support that statement. Chris.Bristol (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The terms become complicated once you look in detail. Is motor power needed for high speed? Or for higher acceleration? Particularly for the UK urban commuter services at the start of the 20th century, the goal was acceleration between closely-spaced stations, even though maximum speeds were never particularly high. Also the main driver for high AC voltages (single phase at least) was for long runs between cities, because it made their power transmission easier, at the cost of more complicated on-board equipment. With AC, most locos of this period had only a few fixed speeds, owing to the limited control equipment yet available (look at the Swiss development history) – although this was remedied with tap-changing transformers and rectification to DC for the motors, long before VFDs, as claimed here. DC could at least give finer control, and smoother acceleration, in a confined urban environment of speed restrictions and signal checks.

I don't see the wording here as a big problem - the article has worse problems than that (lack of content, lack of development history and a chronology for the many different techniques, no integration to the broader picture of different traction systems and their development, ignoring diesel-electrics and the approaches possible when the generator is under driver control too, almost total lack of sourcing). At most I might change, where slower operation would be useful. to where only slower operation was needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing technical facts. My point is that that sentence is speculation - "wouldn't it be a good idea if......". That isn't what Wikipedia is about.

I agree that the article has problems, it is very poor - I came away with the impression that whoever wrote it didn't know what they were talking about. I have neither the knowledge or the time to rewrite it, but thought I could help a little by suggesting the removal of an inappropriate comment. Chris.Bristol (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)