 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
General information
|
 |
 |
General criteria
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Status of development: in use |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
Regenerative braking is used in many DC systems world-wide. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Time horizon for broad application: now |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
(no details available) |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Expected technological development: dynamic |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
Regenerative braking itself is a mature technology. In order to effectively exploit the potential of brake energy recovery in DC systems, additional technologies can be implemented on-board or in substations. In this field, there is potential for further technological developments. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Motivation:
|
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
- Energy saving
- Reduced wear of mechanical brakes.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Benefits (other than environmental): big |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
Wear of mechanical brakes
The use of regenerative brakes reduces wear and maintenance of mechanical
brakes. It may also be possible to reduce the complexity, weight and cost of
mechanical brakes.
Since regenerative braking works without friction, no wearing parts are
present. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Barriers: medium |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
Low voltage
Due to the low catenary voltage in DC systems (1,5 or 3 kV) transmission
losses are high. This reduces the probability of having trains braking and
trains accelerating close enough to each other to allow for an effective
transmission considerably. Without additional technology to improve the
situation, substantial recovery rates can only be achieved in dense suburban
networks.
Voltage limits
It may happen that during braking the catenary voltage increases beyond the
limits foreseen by the standards. In this case voltage is automatically cut off
and no recovery is possible.
Feedback into supply grid
A feedback of recovered energy into the public grid is usually not an option
in DC systems. However, if substations are equipped with thyristor inverter
units , they become reversible and can feed energy into the supply
grid.
Insufficient braking power
The power of regenerative brakes is roughly the same as the one installed for
traction. For many situations (trains running late, bad track conditions,
unexpected stop signals) this is not sufficient. In this case regenerative
brakes are blended with dissipative brakes or completely replaced by them.
Generally, EMUs have a better regenerative braking performance than
loco-hauled trains, since more axles are powered. The higher the motor power and
the more axles are powered, the more energy may be recovered.
Acceptance
Acceptance is generally high. However some drivers are reported to be
reluctant to use regenerative brakes because of safety or timetable
concerns. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Success factors:
|
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
Inverter units for substations
By installing thyristor inverters in substations of DC systems, a
feeding back of recovered braking energy into the public mains becomes a
possibility. This can considerably increase recuperation rates in suburban or
regional DC systems.
Energy storage
On-board or stationary energy storage are another way of
enhancing recuperation rates in DC systems.
Automatic train control
Automatic driver-less systems offer the possibility of introducing
a timetable which is optimised for regenerative braking by synchronising the
acceleration and braking phases of subsequent trains. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Applicability for railway segments: high |
| |
|
 |
 |
Type of traction: electric - DC
|
| |
|
 |
 |
Type of transportation: passenger - main lines, passenger - high speed, passenger - regional lines, passenger - suburban lines, freight
|
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
(no details available) |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Grade of diffusion into railway markets:
|
| |
 |
 |
 |
Diffusion into relevant segment of fleet: > 20% |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Share of newly purchased stock: > 50% |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
The share of stock equipped with regenerative brakes may vary considerably between European countries but is generally high. In new stock regenerative braking capacity is standard technology. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Market potential (railways): high |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
(no details available) |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Example:
|
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
(no details available) |
 |
 |
Environmental criteria
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Impacts on energy efficiency:
|
| |
 |
 |
 |
Energy efficiency potential for single vehicle: 5 - 10% |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Energy efficiency potential throughout fleet: > 5% |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
Share of recoverable energy: Share of recoverable energy heavily depends on speed and stopping pattern. The following values are typical (referring to total energy demand) for different operation types Main lines: 15% Regional lines: 35 % Suburban lines: 45% Freight lines: 20% The recovery rate actually reached in operation only exploits a part of this potential. This is due to several reasons: - Efficiency of backwards power train: The recoverable energy can never be fully regenerated due to losses in backwards power train. Backwards efficiency is comparable to traction efficiency (~ 90%).
- Receptivity of catenary: The supply system may be „non-receptive“ because no other train is close enough to use it. In DC systems, this is frequently the case (cf. General criteria barriers).
- Braking power: Many times the electric braking power is not sufficient and blended braking (cf. Description) is applied. Especially in freight operation, the electric brakes are usually insufficient for braking the entire train.
There is little (if any) quantitative data on these effects. The following table gives some estimates (!) for DC systems. Since the main obstacle is limited receptivity of catenary, the table gives the potential to be exploited with additional technologies (cf. General criteria success factors) and the potential to be exploited without additional technologies: | Theoretical potential | Correction due to traction efficiency | Correction due to blended braking | Potential if additional technologies are used | Correction due to non-receptive catenary | Potential without additional technology | | Main lines | 15% | 0,9 | 0,8 | 11% | 0,2 | 2% | | Regional lines | 35% | 0,9 | 0,8 | 25% | 0,4 | 10% | | Local lines | 45% | 0,9 | 0,8 | 32% | 0,5 | 16% | | Freight lines | 20% | 0,9 | 0,5 | 14% | 0,2 | 3% | Source: IZT A part of the potential given in the last column is already exploited at present. So the remaining potential without additional technology will be around 1 - 5%. If innovative technology (cf. General criteria success factors) is implemented, there is a saving potential of 5 20 % depending on the specific situation. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Other environmental impacts: neutral |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
(no details available) |
 |
 |
Economic criteria
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Vehicle - fix costs: low |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
Recuperation is a common feature in modern stock with no additional costs.
If on-board storage technologies are implemented to raise recuperation rates, vehicle fix costs are very high. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Vehicle - running costs: significant reduction |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
Reduced energy costs and maintenance costs through reduced wear in mechanical brakes. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Infrastructure - fix costs: none |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
No additional infrastructure needed.
The situation is different if additional infrastructure is implemented (cf. thyristor inverters in substations or stationary energy storage. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Infrastructure - running costs: unchanged |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
(no details available) |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Scale effects: none |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
(no details available) |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Amortisation: < 1 year |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
The situation is obviously different if additional technology is implemented. |
 |
 |
Application outside railway sector (this technology is railway specific)
|
 |
 |
Overall rating
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Overall potential: very promising |
| |
 |
 |
 |
Time horizon: mid-term |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
Due to low catenary voltage and the fact that most substations do not allow for a feedback into the public grid, DC systems pose serious obstacles to recovery of brake energy. In very dense suburban networks, high recovery rates can be achieved without additional technologies. In all other cases, recovery rates are low but may be enhanced by innovative technological upgrades of vehicles and/or substations. However, this implies relatively high investment costs. In short term, DC operators should assess the optimisation potential on the basis of present technologies and in mid and long term consider the introduction of additional technologies. |