U NIVERSITY OF S OUTHAMPTON

Design and Manufacture of a

Miniature Railway Locomotive

G ROUP D ESIGN P ROJECT 21

S UMMARY R EPORT

Qasim Al Mansoor, Mitchell Clark, Marco Denis, David Hounsome,

Callum Livingstone, Matthew Marinaccio, Charlie Mehta, Harry Morley,
Hamish Munro-Faure, Peter Nixon, Jack White, David Wikramaratna

Supervisor: Dr Mohamed Torbati

2014 - 2015
ii

Objectives MC
Described below are the objectives set and agreed by both the project team and supervisor:

1. To design, build and test a 10¼´´gauge locomotive with an energy recovery system to recover
kinetic energy otherwise lost during braking
2. To successfully plan and deliver the project on time and in budget, with appropriate documen-
tation
3. Where possible obtain parts and or sponsorship from companies (local or otherwise) in order
to maximise awareness of the project and reduce expenditure
4. To design said locomotive such as to comply with the IMechE Railway Challenge technical
guidelines and rules
5. Entry into the IMechE Railway Challenge competition in June 2015
6. To visit and present the project to potential sponsoring companies
7. To produce promotional material for publicity/recruitment/industrial engagement for use by
the faculty
8. To develop and deliver a comprehensive business case that will convince the executives of
an assumed large corporation that the proposed design best meets their demands.

Resources MC
• Total budget: £23,260.00

– £300 base GDP budget

– £80 per member of GDP (12, total of £960)
– £5,000 industrial sponsorship from Siemens
– £17,000 additional funding from University of Southampton Engineering and the Envi-
ronment development fund
– a further £1,500 rookie team grant was awarded to the team from the IMechE but this
was not spent and will be used by next year’s project team
• Student workshop for part manufacture
• EDMC (Engineering Department Manufacturing Centre) for wheelset manufacture
• Electromechanical laboratory space for storage, bench testing of subsystems and overall
assembly
• Eastleigh Lakeside Railway track for inspection of a previous University of Southampton train
build project still in active use, acquisition of vibration data for the suspension design, track
use for testing of the locomotive and general design/build/maintenance advice
• Team members studying:

– Mechanical Engineering with Advanced Materials

– Mechanical Engineering with Aerospace
– Mechanical Engineering with Automotive
– Mechanical Engineering with Biomedical Engineering
– Mechanical Engineering with Mechatronics
– Mechanical Engineering with Sustainable Energy Systems.
 iii

Constraints MC
During the project the team overcame a number of difficulties including but not limited to:

• Unfamiliar project area for all team members

• Lack of specialist electronics knowledge and practical experience
• Limited time to design, manufacture, assemble and test the locomotive
• Long lead times for certain components such as five weeks for the motor controller
• The need to comply with the IMechE technical specifications and regulations for the Railway
Challenge competition (failsafe brakes, fire detection etc.)
• Assembly, storage, transportation and testing of such a large locomotive in the confines of
assigned laboratory space
• Health and safety considerations for testing the whole system with the petrol generator
• Delays as a result of ordering components through Siemens resulting in many weeks or
months wait for items which are generally available with next-day delivery
• Frustrations with Siemens refusing to order certain items and from certain suppliers, ulti-
mately resulting in remaining budget with Siemens at the close of the project
• Severely limited amount of on-site track lengths for testing purposes.

Approaching the Task MC

Throughout the duration of the project the team met on a weekly basis to update others on progress
and to vote on/discuss key design decisions. Weekly progress summary reports were prepared by
Mitchell as a result of communications with each of the GDP members in advance of the meeting.
Combined with a summary of sub-team progress against the plan, the weekly summary reports
provided a sound base upon which to discuss the progress and planned activities for each of the
members of the large group. Dr Torbati, the project supervisor, was initially kept updated by means
of weekly meetings with individual subteams and email communication with Mitchell as project
manager, reducing to solely the latter in the later months of the project.
The project was broken up into a number of discrete subsystem/project area subteams based
on initial discussions at the beginning of the project and as agreed by both project team and super-
visor:

• Project management
• Bogies
• Brakes
• Electronics & control
• Energy recovery
• Frame
• Shell
• Traction.

Team Organisation MC
Student team members:
Mitchell Clark Project management
Qasim Al Mansoor, Matt Marinaccio, Jack White Electronics and control
Callum Livingstone, Hamish Munro-Faure, Peter Nixon Energy recovery
iv

Marco Denis, Charlie Mehta Bogies

Harry Morley Traction
David Wikramaratna Braking system
David Hounsome Frame
Hamish Munro-Faure, Charlie Mehta Shell

Academic support:

• Project Supervisor: Dr Mohamed Torbati

• Project Second Assessor: Dr John Atkinson
• Mechatronic Technical Advisor: Professor Sulemain Sharkh
• Vibration Technical Advisor: Professor David Thompson.

Important Results MC
Based on the combined efforts of all team members, the project has successfully delivered a func-
tional miniature locomotive (Figures 1 and 2) with the means to recover energy from the braking
process. A short summary of the final design follows (further details can be found in the respec-
tive technical chapters or a general summary in Section 12). The locomotive has been manufac-
tured using aluminium frame and incorporates two bogies (Figure 3), each with two chain-driven
wheelsets. A failsafe vacuum brake system has been implemented along with two DC Lynch mo-
tors in a monomotor arrangement. A supercapacitor has been used to store recovered braking
energy and primary power is provided by a petrol generator. An aluminium plate shell will provide
weatherproofing for the system whilst a myRIO mictrocontroller provides the means to control the
entire system via a Wi-Fi linked tablet.
As well as the physical locomotive the team are able to hand over the mechanical design CAD
files & a respective part index tracking all of the aforementioned parts. A comprehensive bill of
materials for the locomotive has also been updated throughout the project allowing the origins of
any parts used to be quickly traced back to a supplier or vendor if required.

Conclusions MC
A 10¼" gauge miniature locomotive incorporating a number of subsystems has been successfully
designed, manufactured, assembled and tested to comply with a technical specification as provided
by the IMechE for the Railway Challenge competition. As one of, if not the largest GDP teams, the
team have successfully worked together in a limited time frame to construct a functional locomotive
in its entirety. Further work has been identified and recommended both for activities post-report
hand-in in preparation for the Railway Challenge competition by the current team and also for next
year’s project team. The efforts of the current team have resulted in a flexible initial design such
as to allow subsequent teams to optimise the existing design and control systems. Infrastructure
such as the means to safely raise the locomotive to an ergonomic height for construction (build
frame), ability to move the locomotive once at floor level (jacking system) and track panels to allow
local testing of the locomotive have all been designed or acquired as needed. Useful contacts
and connections have been forged both at university by way of specialist professors or lecturers
who can assist in future years, the local miniature railway Eastleigh Lakeside Railway for testing
and advice, the IMechE for subsequent competition entries and suppliers/manufacturers such as
Clarke Lane Engineering based very close to Highfield Campus. As well as attracting attention
 v

Figure 1: Isometric view of the entire locomotive CAD assembly

Figure 2: The assembled locomotive

Figure 3: Isometric view of the bogie CAD assembly

vi

across the whole of the engineering faculty, the project has drawn particular interest from the Dean
of Engineering, Professor William Powrie, been used for a science and engineering open day in
collusion with the Track 21 project and will be shown at the inaugural faculty design show in June.
Finally, the team successfully applied for and won a "rookie team grant" from the IMechE (as a
first-time team entrant into the Railway Challenge) to the value of £1,500 which is to be used in
addition to the basic GDP budget for next year’s team.

Recommendations MC
As the current project is the first of its kind in a considerable number of years, efforts were con-
centrated on the design, manufacture and assembly of a functional locomotive and associated
infrastructure such as the build frame. As a result, future teams will be able to focus more on
optimising the existing locomotive by making (assumed) minor changes to the mechanical and
electrical system designs proposed in this report. Particular areas the team feel could be improved
upon are as follows:

• Redesign of the bearing adapters located between the bogie frame and the wheelsets. These
parts were submitted to the EDMC very early on in the project and, as such, were retrospec-
tively modified as their purpose evolved with the project. The opportunity for future teams to
simplify and optimise their design exists and as such is a suggested area for future work.
• Optimisation of the ancillary battery charging circuit through implementation of algorithms to
improve the efficiency of battery charge. In particular, the use of the myRIO microcontroller
to control the battery charging.
• Further work to isolate generator vibrations through the frame and rest of the locomotive
• Possibility of using a fuel cell as the primary energy source could be considered. This would
reduce the vibration in the locomotive and provide a source of innovation which the current
team did not use (though did consider).
• Further work recommendations with respect to the IMechE Railway Challenge will largely
depend on the changes to the technical specification, technical guidelines and or the changes
to the competition challenges in the 2016 competition which have not yet been released.
 vii

Team Members & Roles MC

Mitchell Clark Qasim Al Mansoor Marco Denis

Project lead, treasurer, Electronics & Control Bogies (Bogie Design)

secretary (LabVIEW)
David Hounsome Callum Livingstone Matthew Marinaccio

Frame Energy Recovery Electronics & Control

(Hardware) (Hardware)
Charlie Mehta Harry Morley Hamish Munro-Faure

Bogies and Shell Traction Energy Recovery & Shell

(Wheelset Design)
Peter Nixon Jack White David Wikramaratna

Energy Recovery Electronics & Control Brakes

(Simulink) (Battery System)
 U NIVERSITY OF S OUTHAMPTON

Design and Manufacture of a

Miniature Railway Locomotive

G ROUP D ESIGN P ROJECT 21

M AIN R EPORT

Qasim Al Mansoor, Mitchell Clark, Marco Denis, David Hounsome,

Callum Livingstone, Matthew Marinaccio, Charlie Mehta, Harry Morley,
Hamish Munro-Faure, Peter Nixon, Jack White, David Wikramaratna

Supervisor: Dr Mohamed Torbati

2014 - 2015
Contents

Page

List of Figures 5

List of Tables 9

Nomenclature 10

1 Introduction 13
1.1 A Brief Introduction to UK Railways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.2 Miniature Railways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3 Eurostar Project - Southampton University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.4 IMechE Railway Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2 Project Brief & Aims 18

2.1 Aims and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3 Project Overview & Budgeting 19

3.1 Team Structure & Task Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2 Budgeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.3 Approach to the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4 Traction 23
4.1 Traction Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2 Initial Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3 Required Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4 Overall Traction System Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.5 Electric DC Motor Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.6 Drivetrain and Transmission Selection/Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.7 Generator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.8 Motor Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.9 Design and Manufacture of Traction System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5 Energy Recovery 41
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2 Potential Energy Recovery Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.3 Supercapacitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.4 Energy Recovery Challenge: Initial Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.5 Electrical Power Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.6 Component Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.7 Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.8 Energy Recovery System Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

6 Brakes 74
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.2 IMechE Specification for Brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.3 Braking Force - Initial Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.4 Research into Full-Size Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.5 Potential Systems for Miniature Locomotive Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.6 Proposed Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.7 Integration with Other Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.8 Final Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.9 Final Calculations for Braking System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

2
CONTENTS 3

6.10 System Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

6.11 Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

7 Electronics and Control 87

7.1 System Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
7.2 Microprocessor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
7.3 Sensor Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
7.4 Brake System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7.5 Motor Control System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
7.6 Ancillary Battery System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7.7 Energy Recovery System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
7.8 Subsystem Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

8 Bogie Design 125

8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
8.2 Bogie Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
8.3 Frame-Bogie Bearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
8.4 Axle Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
8.5 Wheel Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
8.6 Wheelset to Bogie Frame Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
8.7 Suspension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
8.8 Brake System Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
8.9 Final Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

9 Frame Design 155

9.1 Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
9.2 Material Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
9.3 Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
9.4 Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
9.5 Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
9.6 Jacking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
9.7 FEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
9.8 Final Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

10 Body Shell 169

10.1 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
10.2 Noise Control Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
10.3 Material Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
10.4 Design Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
10.5 Final Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

11 Build Area and Rig 180

11.1 Build Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
11.2 Build Rig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

12 Design Summary 187

13 Testing 190
13.1 Jacking Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
13.2 Locomotive Test Run . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

14 Future Work 195

14.1 Anticipated Changes for Railway Challenge 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
14.2 Recommended Work for Future Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

15 Conclusions 197

Bibliography 198
4 CONTENTS

Appendices 208
A Bill of Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
B Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
C Traction Data Sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
D Supercapacitor Data Sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
E Battery Data Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
F EDMC Drawings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
G Drawbar Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
H Bosch Beam Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
I Additional Suspension Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
J Bogie Curving Properties Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
List of Figures

1 Isometric view of the entire locomotive CAD assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

2 The assembled locomotive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
3 Isometric view of the bogie CAD assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

4 Miniature railway track and locomotive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5 Eastleigh Lakeside Railway and volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6 Eurostar miniature locomotive at Eastleigh Lakeside Miniature Railway . . . . . . . . 16

7 Team structure during semester 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

8 Final budget split pie chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

9 Summary of primary fuels/power sources and their relationships with various types
of traction motor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10 Forces acting on the locomotive while it is in motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11 Excel spreadsheet showing performance calculations for specification of traction
motors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12 Excel spreadsheet showing performance calculations for specification of generator . 32
13 Various DC traction motors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
14 Lynch motors being bench tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
15 Example of an epicyclic gear set [21] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
16 CAD rendering of the proposed transmission design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
17 Two possible DC generator sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
18 Generator and SMPS chosen to power locomotive traction system . . . . . . . . . . 39
19 Motor mounting and FEA results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
20 Sprocket adapter and FEA results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
21 Motor with machined spacers, small sprockets and mount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

22 Energy lost during a load-unload cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

23 Ragone plot displaying the specific power and specific energy various storage medi-
ums [53] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
24 Charge efficiencies of supercapacitors of different capacitance values with variable
Vin values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
25 Charge efficiency of 48 V 165 F module with variable Vfull and Vin values . . . . . . . 51
26 Velocity time graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
27 Results of initial model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
28 Circuit diagram of the main power system within the train . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
29 Supercapacitor protective cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
31 The change in voltage of the supercapacitor with respect to the time taken to re-
generate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
30 Circuit diagram detailing the arrangement of components used to simulate the lo-
comotive energy recovery system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
32 Motor current during acceleration and regenerative braking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
33 The velocity of the train during acceleration and regenerative braking . . . . . . . . . 68

5
6 LIST OF FIGURES

35 The change in voltage of the supercapacitor with respect to the time taken to re-
generate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
36 The velocity of the train under energy gained from regenerative braking . . . . . . . 69
34 Circuit diagram detailing the arrangement of components used to simulate the lo-
comotive energy recovery system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
37 The distance covered by the train using previously recovered energy . . . . . . . . . 71
38 Circuit diagram of the energy recovery bench top test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
39 Supercapacitor charge and discharge rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

40 Braking systems used on modern trains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

41 The relationship between disc size and force required to overcome its motion . . . . 78
42 Two potential methods of manually releasing the brakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
43 The solenoid valve used to control the braking system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
44 The final system diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
45 A CAD model of the braking system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
46 The results of stress testing on the system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
47 Two components forming the connection between the braking system and the track . 84
48 Photographs of the assembled components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
49 A number of different cylinder configurations were tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

50 Different microprocessors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
51 Binary weighting matrix showing the relative importance of microprocessor param-
eters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
52 Overall score of microprocessors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
53 NI Data Dashboard application [91] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
54 Schematic arrangement of optical speed measurement [92] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
55 Speed sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
56 LabVIEW RPM VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
57 Speed sensor test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
58 MATLAB code for RPM timer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
59 Speed sensor and magnet brackets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
60 Potential divider circuit for temperature measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
61 Fire detection circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
62 LabVIEW temperature measurement VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
63 Upstream and downstream pressure against volumetric flow rate [96] . . . . . . . . 101
64 Circuit diagram for the standard transistor switching circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
65 Initial VI for all switching circuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
66 Motor control binary weighting matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
67 Motor control ancillary circuitry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
68 Illustration of four quadrant motor control operation [97] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
69 Braking system design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
70 Motor control bench testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
71 Battery monitoring components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
72 Full 12 V ancillary circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
73 Low voltage disconnect circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
74 Voltage divider test circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
75 User interface of voltage monitoring NI LabVIEW script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
76 Block diargram script that monitors the battery voltage via the myRIO analogue input 115
77 Theoretical current sensor circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
LIST OF FIGURES 7

78 Implementing the test current sensing circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

79 The relationship between the measured current and the voltage output of the Hall
effect current sensor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
80 Final block diagram of the integrated battery monitoring system . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
81 Final front panel of the integrated battery monitoring system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
82 Battery terminal covers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
83 The specified supercapacitor charge/discharge circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
84 User interface of the supercapacitor circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
85 The block diagram that enables the myRIO to be able to control the supercapacitor
circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
86 Supercapacitor switches circuit implemented on the locomotive . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
87 Driver interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
89 Pin allocation for connecting each subsystem to the myRIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
88 Full electrical system block diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
90 Integration of subsystems on partially disassembled skeleton frame . . . . . . . . . 124

91 Previous fixed-wheel Railway Challenge designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

92 Graphical analysis of wheels and flanges in a 20 m bend radius turn . . . . . . . . . 127
93 FEA under downwards loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
94 A preliminary wheelset setup that can be used to determine requirements . . . . . . 131
95 Deformation of the axle and outlining the points of maximum and minimum deflection 132
96 Young’s Modulus of the axle as a function of the axle diameter and sprung mass . . 133
97 Minimum axle diameters based off torsion analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
98 Required minimum wheel diameter to eliminate wheel spin for different masses . . . 137
99 Required minimum wheel diameter to eliminate wheel spin for different masses and
differing power outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
100 Required minimum wheel diameter to eliminate wheel spin for different masses at
a power output of 8 kW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
101 Highest specification linear motion guide that would fit in the design space [129] . . 140
102 Implemented version of the custom designed coupling designed to eliminate longi-
tudinal relative motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
103 Coupler modelled as a cantilever beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
104 Both loading situations on the lockout pins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
105 Bending moment variation about the y-axis for the top pin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
106 von Mises stress distribution on the top and bottom pins for an 8mm pin diameter . . 146
107 Suspension graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
108 FEA output showing the maximum possible stress under braking a locomotive of
mass 2 tonnes pulling a 400 kg trailing load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
109 FEA output showing the safety factor under braking a locomotive of mass 2 tonnes
pulling a 400 kg trailing load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
110 Calliper mount final design and validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
111 Render of final bogie layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
112 Final wheelset-suspension assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

113 von Mises FEA stress plot for steel frame design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
114 View of the frame showing the lateral generator support beams fixed on top of the
main longitudinal beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
115 Experimenting without supporting beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
116 Initial and final superstructure designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
8 LIST OF FIGURES

117 von Mises FEA stress plot for 5 mm aluminium shelf design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
118 Contactors being attached to the shelf by the E&C subteam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
119 Early design using double gusset arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
120 Bosch connector load ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
121 View of the headstock beam showing the 45×45mm connectors attached between
the longitudinal beams and the headstock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
122 Double bogie beam arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
123 Use of S12 connection screws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
124 Initial coupler designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
125 Von Mises FEA stress plot for coupler design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
126 Jacking designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
128 Final frame geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
127 Frame FEA study for locomotive at rest with 1500 N backward-acting force to simu-
late maximum acceleration up a 2.86° slope with a 600 kg trailing load . . . . . . . . 168

129 Generator noise path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

130 Potential air vent opening covers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
131 Noise measurement setup and raw data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
132 A-weighted and non A-weighted SWLoof the generator compared to the SWL of
background noise [152] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
133 Reduction index for the three shell options [152] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
134 One third octave band spectra SPL at receiver with different shells [152] . . . . . . . 172
135 Roof overhang variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
136 Right side of locomotive displaying access to generator housing with middle panel
removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
137 Left side of locomotive displaying access to shelving units with end panels removed 177
138 Two train models serviced by local Siemens depot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
139 Final shell design CAD model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

140 Miniature railway track and locomotive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

141 CAD model of track panel with locomotive assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
142 Build rig design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
144 Build rig as constructed in the lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
145 Build frame laceration protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
143 Build rig FEA study having split the geometry into a quarter of actual layout . . . . . 186

146 The assembled locomotive as tested at Eastleigh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

147 Close-up of locomotive wheelset showing driven sprocket and disc brake . . . . . . 188
148 Isometric view of the bogie CAD assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
149 Isometric view of the entire locomotive CAD assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
150 Side view of the assembled locomotive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

151 The locomotive being loaded into the van . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

152 Drawbar images from Eastleigh Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
153 Soft charging results and circuit diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
154 Locomotive during testing at Eastleigh Lakeside Miniature Railway . . . . . . . . . . 194

155 Potential future shell designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

List of Tables

1 Initial and revised budget split . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2 Comparison of advantages and disadvantages of different types of traction motor

[10] [11] [12] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3 Parameters affecting traction performance stated in IMechE Technical Specification
[15] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4 Overview of traction system concept for locomotive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5 Binary weighting matrix showing relative importance of energy storage medium pa-
rameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6 Overall score of energy storage medium suitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7 Assumptions of the initial model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
8 Power required by the train in different operating situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
9 Switch ratings and functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
10 Calculated estimates of system component inertia values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
11 Lynch motor parameter inputs for Simscape simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
12 Supercapacitor parameters input for Simscape simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

13 Calculations made to assess required force output from any locomotive braking
system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
14 Binary weighting matrix showing the relative importance of braking parameters . . . 79
15 Brake system calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

16 Summary of the key performance parameters of different microprocessors . . . . . . 90

17 Subsystem functions and the corresponding input and output requirements from
the myRIO microprocessor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
18 Ancillary battery power requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
19 Different battery technology characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

20 Typical values for each parameter that appear in Equation 8.5.7. . . . . . . . . . . . 136

21 Critical frequencies and SPLs at the receiver for various shells . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
22 Advantages and disadvantages of aluminium and fibreglass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

9
Nomenclature

Symbols k Peukert Coefficient

°C Degrees Celsius k Thermal Conductivity
° Degree KM Motor Torque Constant (Nm/A)
η Efficiency L Length (m)
ηP Powertrain Efficiency M Sprung Train Mass (kg)
κ Stiffness (N/m) m Mass (kg)
N Power (W)
λ Dynamic Viscosity (Nsm−2 )
Nu Nusselt Number
µ Coefficient of Friction
p Poisson’s Ratio
ν Deflection (m)
PE Potential Energy (J)
Ω Ohms Pr Prandtl Number
ω Angular Velocity (rad/s) Q Electrical Charge (As)
ρ Density (kgm−3 ) Q Energy (J)
σ Stress (Pa) R Electrical Resistance (Ω)
τ Shear Stress (Pa) R Reaction Force (N)
θ Angle of Incline (°) r Radius (m)
θ Angle of Twist (°) Ra Rayleigh Number
A Amperes Re Reynolds Number
A Area (m2 ) s Seconds
a Acceleration (m/s2 ) SF Shear Force (Pa)
a Sheet Length (m) T Applied Torque (Nm)
T Temperature (K)
b Sheet Width (m)
T Torque (Nm)
BM Bending Moment (Nm)
t Time (s)
C Capacitance (F)
U Fluid Flow Velocity (m/s)
C Capacity (Ah)
u Forward Velocity (m/s)
C Circumference (m) V Voltage
c Heat Capacity (kJ/kgK) W Load (N)
c0 Speed Of Sound In Air (m/s) WD Work Done by External Forces (J)
D Radiation Ratio y Thickness (m)
d Diameter (m) YS Yield Strength (Pa)
E Energy (J) Z Resistance (Ω)
E Young’s Modulus (Pa) Subscripts
e Exponential Constant Al Aluminium
F Force (N) C Capacitor
f Frequency (Hz) c Critical
G Gearing Ratio D Aerodynamic Drag Force
dc Direct Current
G Shear Modulus of Elasticity (Pa)
Drag Resistive Force
g Gravitational Acceleration (m/s2 )
ext External Loading
H Plate Perimeter (m)
extra Trailing Load
h Heat Transfer Coefficient (W/m2 K) full Full
I Current (A) in Voltage Source Value
I Second Moment of Area (m4 ) loco Locomotive
J Inertia (kgm2 ) mat Other Material
JT Torsion Constant maximum Maximum
K Sprung Weight (kg) measured Measured

10
LIST OF TABLES 11

n nth term IDC Insulation Displacement Connectors

normal Normal Reaction Force IMechE Institution of Mechanical Engineers
out Out IO Input Output
p Primary ISVR Institute of Sound and Vibration Re-
recov Recovered search
res Resonant KERS Kinetic Energy Recovery System
RR Rolling Resistance Force LabVIEW Laboratory Virtual Instrument Engi-
st Stored
neering Workbench
supply Supply
LED Light Emitting Diode
total Total
Li-ion Lithium-ion
Traction Tractive Force
LMC Lynch Motor Company
trailingmax Maximum Trailing Load
MDOF Multiple Degrees of Freedom
trailing Trailing Load
NI National Instruments
wheel Maximum Wheel Tangential Force
Abbreviations Ni-MH Nickel-Metal Hydride
CAD Computer Aided Design NTC Negative Temperature Coefficient
EDMC Engineering Department Manufacturing PM Permanent Magnet
Centre PWM Pulse-Width Modulation
ERS Energy Recovery System ROR Rate of Rise
ESR Equivalent Series Resistance SMPS Switched-Mode Power Supply
FEA Finite Element Analysis SOC State of Charge
GDP Group Design Project SPL Sound Pressure Level
GUI Graphical User Interface SWL Sound Power Level
ICE Internal Combustion Engine VI Visual Instrument
Acknowledgements

The team wish to acknowledge the following for their assistance during the project:
Dr Mohamed Torbati - Project Supervisor for supervising the project
Professor Sulemain Sharkh - Mechatronic Project Advisor for mechatronic project advice and
guidance
Professor David Thompson - Rail Vibration Project Advisor for advice and guidance regarding
bogie and suspension design
Mr Vorrapath Kokaew - Simulink Project Advisor for initial advice and guidance with use of
Simulink
Dr John Atkinson - Second Assessor for acting as examiner for the project.
Tim Hartley - Lab Technician for above average chat, invitations to Chef Hong Kong for lunches
and copious amounts of invaluable life advice
Pavittar Bassi - Purchasing (Engineering) for efficiently dealing with as many order requests
from this GDP as the rest of the projects combined
Siddiq Al-Busmait - Previous IMechE Railway Challenge Winner for technical advice and first
time project entry help
Alan Stewart - Siemens for project management guidance, site visits, technical advice and indus-
trial sponsorship (although we really would have liked that toolbox)
Paul Darling - Siemens for assistance with items purchased through Siemens
Beejal Shah - National Instruments for initial myRio training and technical advice
Clive Upton and team - Eastleigh Lakeside Railway for helpful advice & guidance and for allow-
ing the use of the track for testing purposes and to gather data from
Dr Martin Toward - ISVR for helping during suspension testing and providing all the necessary
equipment
John Young - EDMC for assisting the team in getting the wheelsets machined in time for the Uni-
versity of Southampton science fair
Justin Gregory - EDMC for almost daily delivery notifications and enough nuts & bolts to build a
train
Rachel Pearson - IMechE for swift rule clarification where required
Gary Painting & Team - Estates and Facilities for transporting the locomotive to Eastleigh Lake-
side Miniature Railway from Highfield Campus for testing
Cliff Terry - IMechE for assistance and clarification in preparation for the Railway Challenge
IMechE for awarding the team with a £1,500 rookie team grant which will be used by next year’s
team
Rob Stansbridge - ISVR for invaluable electronics and sensing systems advice.

12
1. Introduction
1.1 A Brief Introduction to UK Railways MC
Historically, the railway industry has always had a strong association with Great Britain. Since the
world’s first steam-hauled railway running between Liverpool and Manchester opened in 1830 as a
replacement for horses, carts and canals, Great Britain’s railway industry has surged in size [1]. The
total number of journeys by rail in Great Britain more than doubled between 1994/95 and 2009/10.
It is predicted that the average person will make 61% more long distance rail journeys by 2043 in
comparison to current levels [2]. In light of these trends and predictions, UK rail infrastructure is
undergoing heavy investment from the government in order to reduce journey times and make rail
travel a more attractive prospect for potential customers. The two most significant projects currently
being undertaken are those of Crossrail in London and High Speed Two (HS2), the latter of which
is currently estimated to cost around £42.6bn and is due for completion in 2033 [3].
The motivations of the government to invest in the railway are not just profit driven, but also
based upon emissions and energy usage. Due to the potential number of passengers transportable
by a single carriage, trains are able to overcome their high speeds and heavy frames by greatly
reducing the frontal area per passenger. This results in trains having a hugely reduced drag force
per person in comparison to a car with a single occupant. Trains also only ever have a very small
contact region between wheel and rail which results in minimal rolling resistance. The outcome
of these facts is that, per person, trains are much more efficient in energy terms than personal
vehicles. A commuter train is upwards of 25 times more efficient than a standard road car [4].
A current area of interest for the rail industry is that of energy recovery. That is, recovering
energy otherwise lost during the braking process and storing it somehow for use as tractive effort
to improve efficiencies. This can take the form of local storage such as a supercapacitor/flywheel
or in grid form whereby recovered energy is sent back to the supply grid for use elsewhere.

1.2 Miniature Railways MC

Miniature railways are generally privately owned scale railways operating on one of a number of
reduced gauge track sizes, there are over 50 such railways open to the public spread throughout
the United Kingdom [5]. Common miniature railway gauges are 5", 7¼" and 10¼" track sizes.
Figure 4a shows a section of 10¼" gauge rail. Miniature railways are primarily used for leisure
purposes, often run by volunteers. Due to the small market, locomotives are often restored or built
from scratch rather than purchased. It is not uncommon for locomotives in regular use to date back
to the 1940’s. Figure 4b shows a selection of 10¼" gauge locomotives which are in regular use
at Eastleigh Lakeside Railway. Locomotives in use are powered by a variety of means including
steam, electric and diesel hydraulic. Two such railways the project has had particular association
with are Eastleigh Lakeside Miniature Railway in Eastleigh, Southampton and Stapleford Miniature
Railway in Leicestershire.

1.2.1 Eastleigh Lakeside Miniature Railway

Eastleigh Lakeside Miniature Railway, see Figure 5, is a miniature railway privately owned by rail-
way enthusiast Clive Upton, which has been running since 1992 in Eastleigh, Southampton. The

13
14 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

(a) 10¼" gauge rail at Stapleford Miniature (b) Selection of 10¼" gauge locomotives at
Railway in Leicestershire Eastleigh Lakeside Miniature Railway

Figure 4: Miniature railway track and locomotive

railway is a dual-gauge variety with over 1.25 miles of both 7¼" and 10¼" tracks. A fleet of 19
steam, one battery and two diesel hydraulic powered locomotives are located at the miniature rail-
way [6]. The battery powered locomotive is the Eurostar, a previous University of Southampton MSc
project, which has since been modified and improved by Eastleigh enthusiasts. See Section 1.3
for further information about this particular locomotive. The railway enthusiasts at Eastleigh were
incredibly useful in the early stages of the project, allowing team members full access to the railway
and locomotives. This provided a sound opportunity for the group to see the subsystems and mech-
anisms in use on such miniature locomotives, as well as gratefully receive technical advice from the
incredibly experienced volunteers. During the latter parts of the project, the team were given open
access to the railway to allow the testing of the assembled locomotive, see Section 13.2 for further
details. The close locality of Eastleigh Railway to the University is a superbly useful resource and
future teams are strongly urged to make full use of the incredibly generous and knowledgeable
volunteers based there, as well as the obvious advantage of a working track (with both bends and
points!).

Figure 5: Eastleigh Lakeside Railway and volunteers

1.2.2 Stapleford Miniature Railway

Stapleford Miniature Railway is a miniature railway of 10¼" gauge situated in Leicestershire. Orig-
inally created in 1958, it was restored in 1992 and is a private railway in regular operation. There
are over 2 miles of 10¼" gauge track and a wide variety of locomotives stored at the railway [7].
The railway is the track used by the IMechE for the Railway Challenge competition.

1.3 Eurostar Project - Southampton University MC

Although the project is the first of its kind to be run as a group design project (GDP), there was pre-
viously an MSc project based around the design and build of a 10¼" gauge miniature locomotive
1.3. EUROSTAR PROJECT - SOUTHAMPTON UNIVERSITY 15

under the supervision of Professor Sharkh. The four man project was based at Eastleigh Lakeside
Railway where they were able to build and test the locomotive on site. The Eurostar now perma-
nently resides at Eastleigh Railway where it is maintained by enthusiasts and remains in frequent
use. In the early stages of the current project (as mentioned above), some of the team visited
Eastleigh to inspect and look at both the track and the previous Eurostar project.
The Eurostar miniature locomotive, see Figure 6a, is around 3 m in length and is of 10¼" gauge,
like that of the locomotive which has been designed. Outlined below are the various design aspects
of the Eurostar including feedback from volunteers at Eastleigh Railway:

• Bogies The Eurostar has two bogies, each with two driven wheelsets (see Figure 6c). The
wheelsets are constructed from EN8, a variety of medium carbon steel, and each axle has
a brake disc welded to it (see Figure 6b). The bogies interact with the frame by means of a
simple plain bearing (a lubricated shaft in a slightly larger hole), with lubricated nylon blocks
at either side for alignment purposes. The locomotive has only single suspension with coil
springs mounted between the axlebox and bogie, damping vibrations from discontinuities in
the track.
• Brakes The Eurostar makes use of a vacuum braking system whereby a brake cylinder actu-
ates an external rod based on the movement of internal diaphragms due to a vacuum formed
in the system. A vacuum pump is mounted centrally on the frame. A single cylinder per bogie
is linked to a calliper which grips a brake disc mounted on each axle.
• Electronics & control The most notable electronics and control aspect of the Eurostar is the
sizeable battery pack mounted in the centre of the frame (Figure 6d), allowing the locomotive
to run for multiple days from a single charge. The control panel (Figure 6e) for the locomotive
is simple with controls for throttle, direction, brake application, horn and lights. There are also
indicators for battery condition, vacuum level for the brakes, wheelslip and a modified bicycle
computer for speed.
• Frame The chassis is constructed of tubular steel which provides mass to aid in tractive force
to reduce wheelspin under power. The size of the Eurostar is largely due to the size of the
required battery pack mounted centrally on the frame.
• Shell The Eurostar shell is a mixture of fibreglass and wood construction with a completely
removeable box section (Figure 6f) which has a hinged access door. As the Eurostar is a
standard miniature railway locomotive there is also a suitable cut-out in the exterior for a
driver to sit in.
• Traction The Eurostar is powered by two brushless DC motors, one mounted on each bogie.
All wheelsets are chain driven by their respective motor. The volunteers noted that one of
the first modifications undertaken when they first received the Eurostar was to remove the
previously installed bicycle chain drive and swap it for a heavier duty motorcycle chain.
16 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

(a) Front view of Eurostar locomotive showing fi- (b) Carriage wheelset showing primary suspen-
breglass nose sion, brake disc and calliper

(c) Top-down view of bogie showing motor, chain (d) Eurostar with shell removed showing battery
drives and wheelsets pack

(e) Close-up view of the driver’s cab in the Eu- (f) Wooden Eurostar shell when removed, access
rostar hatch opened

Figure 6: Eurostar miniature locomotive at Eastleigh Lakeside Miniature Railway

1.4. IMECHE RAILWAY CHALLENGE 17

1.4 IMechE Railway Challenge MC

The IMechE Railway Challenge is a competition run by the IMechE in an attempt to raise awareness
of graduates for a career in rail. The competition is open to apprentices, students and graduates
from both universities and industry alike. The competition is based around teams designing and
building a miniature 10¼" gauge locomotive to a set of rules and specifications as set by the IMechE
with the completed locomotives then competing against one another in late June across a number
of challenge areas including [8]:

• Energy efficiency whereby the primary energy utilisation of the locomotive is assessed
against the useful energy output transferred to the wheels
• Energy recovery/storage whereby the locomotive must come to a stop by a given point and,
during this time, recover as much energy as possible. Once stopped, the locomotive must
utilise the stored energy for tractive effort in an attempt to propel the locomotive as far as
possible using only recovered energy.
• Traction whereby the ability of the locomotive to pull a heavy trailing load up a 5% gradient
is assessed
• Ride comfort where the aim is to reduce the vibration transmitted to the outside of the loco-
motive as much as possible so as to improve the theoretical ride comfort
• Noise simply to reduce the noise output of the locomotive
• Maintainability where the aim is to consider the maintainability of the locomotive such that a
wheelset can quickly be swapped out in the fastest time possible
• Design where the design considerations of the locomotive are investigated including meeting
specified requirements and innovative design aspects
• Business case whereby a theoretical pitch to a large corporation who are considering the
purchase of the designed locomotive must be presented to a judging panel considering as-
pects such as environmental impact and profitability.

As well as competing in the aforementioned challenges, locomotives must be designed to a strict

set of technical specifications. These specifications have a number of purposes including to chal-
lenge teams, drive innovation and ensure designs are safe as well as innovative. Some of the more
challenging specifications teams must abide by include (see respective technical chapters for more
details):

• Refuel from 0% to 100% in 90 seconds

• Brakes must be applied in the event of a power failure
• Brakes must be able to be manually released and then reapplied
• Level of energy recovered must be monitored and displayed to the user.

Teams must also submit technical documentation, including a summary report and proof of calcu-
lations, to justify design decisions made and to prove the locomotive is safe for testing.
One of the principal motivations behind the project is that the locomotive be designed with the
competition in mind such that it can be entered into the competition in June 2015.
2. Project Brief & Aims MC

The original project description as given by the supervisor is as follows:

The ultimate aim is to enter the IMechE Railway Challenge that requires the design and man-
ufacture of a miniature (10¼" gauge) railway locomotive in accordance with a set of rules and a
technical specification. The locomotive should provide self-contained motive power and be able
to operate for 3 hours without refuelling; on the basis that operation comprises continuous travel
at 5 km/h (with max speed of 15 km/h) on a 5% gradient with a 400 kg trailing load of negligible
friction. The type of motive power utilised will be entirely at the discretion of the team.
There are several challenging aspects to the design:

• Braking and energy recovery system (3 students)

• Ride comfort - the effectiveness of the suspension to isolate the locomotive from track irreg-
ularities and other sources of vibration (2 students)
• Noise emitted by the locomotive (2 students)
• The design should include detail drawings (1 student)
• Full performance and structural calculation and a thorough cost-benefit analysis should be
carried out (1 student)
• Traction control - the ability of the locomotive to pull a load from a standing start (3 students).

2.1 Aims and Objectives MC

The principal aim of the project is to design, manufacture, assemble and test a miniature 10¼"
gauge locomotive. The locomotive should incorporate regenerative braking such that energy oth-
erwise lost during braking can be stored and used to power the locomotive. Described below are
the objectives set and agreed by both the project team and supervisor:

1. To design, build and test a 10¼" gauge locomotive with an energy recovery system to recover
kinetic energy otherwise lost during braking
2. To successfully plan and deliver the project on time and in budget, with appropriate documen-
tation
3. Where possible, to obtain parts and or sponsorship from companies (local or otherwise) in
order to maximise awareness and reduce expenditure
4. To design said locomotive such as to comply with the IMechE Railway Challenge technical
guidelines and rules
5. To enter into the IMechE Railway Challenge competition
6. To visit and present the project to potential sponsoring companies
7. To produce promotional material for publicity/recruitment/industrial engagement, used by the
faculty
8. To develop and deliver a comprehensive business case that will convince the executives of
an assumed large corporation that the proposed design best meets their demands.

18
3. Project Overview & Budgeting
3.1 Team Structure & Task Allocation MC
Team members found out about their allotted group project late in the 2013/14 academic year,
around April 2014. With the project assigned the group initially met in May/June 2014 to discuss
the project and try to divide the work into discrete areas ready for assignment in September 2014
after the summer break.
The initially proposed breakdown of work by the project supervisor was to split the work into
areas such as braking & energy recovery, mechanical design, noise, performance & structural cal-
culations and traction control. However, in early meetings it was decided by the team to redistribute
the work according to subsystems such as to more appropriately break the work down into discrete
work packages for each subsystem. The chosen work packages and the allocation of responsible
team members were as follows (Figure 7):

• Project management Mitchell Clark

• Bogies Marco Denis, Charlie Mehta
• Brakes David Wikramaratna
• Electronics & control Qasim Al Mansoor, Matt Marinaccio, Jack White
• Energy recovery Callum Livingstone, Hamish Munro-Faure, Peter Nixon
• Frame David Hounsome
• Shell Hamish Munro-Faure, Charlie Mehta
• Traction Harry Morley.

Figure 7: Team structure during semester 1

As indicated in Figure 7 the team consisted not only of students but also academics and Siemens
as an industrial sponsor. Principal academic support was as follows:

• Project Supervisor: Dr Mohammed Torbati

19
20 CHAPTER 3. PROJECT OVERVIEW & BUDGETING

• Project Second Assessor: Dr John Atkinson

• Mechatronic Technical Advisor: Professor Sulemain Sharkh
• Vibration Technical Advisor: Professor David Thompson.

Before the project started it had been agreed with Siemens that they would sponsor the project
to the sum of £5,000 financial sponsorship and also provide technical assistance where required
(see Section 3.2 for further financial details). The team were also able to visit Eastleigh Works,
a site where South West Trains locomotives, which Siemens maintain, undergo heavy overhaul.
This provided a useful opportunity for group members to see commercial locomotive bogies up
close and gain an appreciation for aspects of design which ease maintainability of locomotives, as
required for the IMechE competition.

3.2 Budgeting MC
As the project was a complete design, build and test proposal starting from no real previous work,
the anticipated costs were considerable. The initially allocated budget at the beginning of the
project was as follows:

• Total budget: £6,260.00

– £300 base GDP budget

– £80 per member of GDP (12, total of £960)
– £5,000 industrial sponsorship from Siemens.

During the early months of the project, the team were fortunate enough to receive £17,000 of
the £22,750 grant money from an Engineering faculty grant fund which Dr Torbati applied for in
anticipation of the high project costs. This meant the operating project budget was increased as
shown below:

• Total budget: £23,260.00

– £300 base GDP budget

– £80 per member of GDP (12, total of £960)
– £5,000 industrial sponsorship from Siemens
– £17,000 additional funding from the University of Southampton Engineering and the
Environment development fund
– a further £1,500 rookie team grant was awarded to the team from the IMechE but this
was not spent and will be used by next year’s project team.

An initial budget split occurred after a few weeks of research by the individual subteams. This
initial split was then revised close to the project review in week 11 of semester 1, somewhere
around halfway through the project. Table 1 shows the initial and revised budget splits for the
project. Figure 8 shows the final project spend between the various subsystems. It is observed
that the major differences between predicted and final spend come from the electronics & control
and traction subsystems.
3.3. APPROACH TO THE PROJECT 21

Table 1: Initial and revised budget split

Figure 8: Final budget split pie chart

A final bill of materials (BOM) for the entire project spend can be found in Appendix A.

3.3 Approach to the Project MC

All project documentation was stored on a shared Dropbox folder which all team members and the
project supervisor, Dr Torbati, had access to. Folder structure was kept organised such as to allow
members from other teams to check documentation easily and efficiently where required. Special
effort was made to control the quality and organisation of CAD models during the design phases
of the project. A parts index spreadsheet was created and kept updated to link part names in the
CAD to parts/products for sale or for manufacture. CAD organisation was enforced and any rebuild
errors, unconstrained parts etc. were swiftly corrected.
Given the number of members in the group, the ambitious aims and the large project budget,
organisation was crucial in securing an effective outcome for the project. Throughout the duration
22 CHAPTER 3. PROJECT OVERVIEW & BUDGETING

of the project, the whole team met once a week. During these meetings a round-the-table discus-
sion on the progress made that week occurred as well as providing a floor for discussion about
design decisions and the opportunity to voice any concerns or difficulties encountered. After a
few weeks, weekly summary reports as prepared by Mitchell provided a basis for the discussion in
these meetings such as to add to the structure of the discussion. Achievements for the week were
obtained from individual group members in advance of the group meetings and compiled into a
document which was then displayed during the meetings. Progress against a project plan was also
assessed to allow any upcoming important milestones to be highlighted and also ensure progress
was occurring in a timely fashion.
Subteams with multiple members met as often as required, particular collaboration was required
between the electronics & control subteam and the other subsystems to be controlled such as
brakes, energy recovery and traction.
Once initial research had been undertaken, subsystems began to require various parts to be
purchased such that modelling and or testing could occur. All order requests were submitted to
purchasing by Mitchell, thus allowing careful control of the overall spend at all times (a problem
which could otherwise easily have been encountered with such a large group).
An initial report structure was created in late 2014 using LATEXby Mitchell, using the Eurostar
report as a basis for the division of the sections. Team members were then able to add to this as
they saw fit throughout the duration of the project. Project review and VIVA presentations were/will
be created in a similar fashion with an initial template/layout created and then team members
editing their respective sections to add content. This ensured consistency in both the layout and
style of such documentation.
A copy of the project risk assessment can be found in Appendix B.
4. Traction
4.1 Traction Overview HM
The traction system, which incorporates the primary power generation, transmission and drivetrain,
is what makes the locomotive move. In the same way a car has an internal combustion engine,
gearbox and drive shafts, the locomotive needs a way to convert the stored energy in a primary
fuel or power source into torque through the axles and wheels to provide a tractive driving force.
The number of different primary fuels, methods to convert their stored energy into motion, types
of transmission and options for the drivetrain led to a significant amount of initial research being
performed to determine an overall concept system, for which individual components could then be
either selected or designed. This initial research is covered in Section 4.2, with details of the selec-
tion and design of the individual components in Sections 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7. Determining the required
performance of the locomotive and gaining an insight into how the final design would theoretically
perform was critical to enable specification of the design and selection of the components, and
details of this process can be found in Section 4.3. Although all of the research is presented as a
step-by-step process, finding an overall system concept that would be both effective and feasible
relied heavily on design decisions made by the whole team and went through a number of iterations
before the concept discussed in Section 4.4 was chosen.
Detail on the design and manufacture of the whole traction system is found in Section 4.9. The
design work ranged from individual components to incorporating the entire system into the loco-
motive. Manufacture of certain bespoke components was carried out using the facilities available
at the University in the EDMC.

4.2 Initial Research HM

General research into the methods of traction used for full scale and miniature locomotives was
undertaken. It was found that nearly all modern locomotive designs utilise electric traction motors,
both in DC and AC variants, with the electrical power to supply them either delivered through
overhead lines called ‘catenaries’ or from an on-board diesel generator. In the past, hydraulic and
mechanical traction methods have also been employed [9]. With this taken into account, it was
decided to first find a range of possible traction motors types, and assess their suitability for the
project, which can be seen in Section 4.2.1. With a traction motor type decided on, investigation
into providing the power, through different types of primary fuel, was undertaken. This is detailed
in Section 4.2.2. Following this initial research, a decision was made on the overall type of traction
system to be used.

4.2.1 Traction Motors

While investigating methods of traction, four possible types of motor were found. The first of these
were electric motors in their various forms; including both AC and DC, series or shunt wound and
those using permanent magnets. These motors require a voltage to be applied over their terminals
and draw a current proportional to the driven load. At this stage of investigation determining the
exact type of electric motor was less important as the comparison was to be made between the
four general traction motor types. The second type were hydraulic motors, which use liquid fluid

23
24 CHAPTER 4. TRACTION

flow and pressure to create torque and movement. Thirdly pneumatic motors were found, similar to
hydraulic but using compressed air flow rather than liquid. The final option considered was using a
direct mechanical linkage from an internal combustion engine (ICE) to drive the wheel sets.
To compare the four choices, a number of criteria were outlined to make a decision, including
the following:

• Cost • Ease of implementing energy recovery

• Power density • Safety
• Efficiency • Noise during operation
• Availability • Maintenance requirements
• Expertise in team and from supervisors • Flexibility in terms of overall design.

Although these chosen criteria were broad they served as an easy way to make an initial de-
cision on which type of traction motor would be used. As the electric motor is the standard used
in nearly all modern locomotives, the initial research was mainly to see if any of the other options
had any tangible benefits over what is already established. Table 2 summarises the findings of the
comparisons, showing the general advantages and disadvantages of each system.

Traction Type Advantages Disadvantages

• Large range of sizes, power and
speed readily available
• Low maintenance
• Relatively quiet
• Capable of regenerative braking
• High level of expertise available from
Electric Motor
supervisors
• Precise and automated control achievable
• Low maintenance and long life
• High efficiency, often over 90%
• Flexible placement of motors and power
source as supply cables can be routed
• High power density
• Force multiplication can provide
large mechanical advantage
• Flexible placement of motors and power
source as hydraulic lines can be routed
Hydraulic Motor • Overloads can be dealt with safely
using relief valves
• Self-lubricating design can reduce
maintenance
• Generally quiet in operation
• System can be relatively simple
• High power density
• No risk of overheating as air cools motor
• Variable torque and speed characteristics
without complex control
Pneumatic Motor
• Flexible placement of motors and power
source as air lines can be routed
• Speed control only requires valves
and regulators
• Large range of sizes, power and
speed readily available
• High level of expertise available
from faculty and team
IC Engine
• Well established methods of speed
and power control
• Only one energy conversion;
from chemical to mechanical
• Speed and torque control can be costly and
complex
• Can be relatively heavy due to high density
construction materials
• Risk of burning out in high load conditions
• High power electrical systems pose risk of
electrocution and require adequate safety measures
• Recovering energy in braking not a common
feature, would likely require a separate system
• Less commonly available and can be expensive
• Less expertise available to project team
• Very high pressure systems can be dangerous
and require expensive control valves and reservoirs
• Precise control of speed and torque is costly
• Contaminants, corrosion and heat can easily
damage hydraulic systems
• Recovering energy in braking not a common
feature, would likely require a separate system
• Loud in operation due to the sound of the escaping air
• Less expertise available to project team
• Poor energy density in stored compressed
air and numerous inefficiencies during compression
• Requires high pressure air lines and valves
which can be costly
• Compressibility of air makes accurate speed
control harder to achieve
• Leaks common which impede performance
• Quality of input air must be controlled
for correct operation
• Recovering energy in braking not a common
feature, would likely require a separate system
• Loud in operation
• Drivetrain and transmission is complex,
requiring gearing and clutches
• Size of IC engine makes it difficult to
locate to be able to directly drive any wheel sets
• Sufficient cooling required for engine

Table 2: Comparison of advantages and disadvantages of different types of traction motor [10] [11]
[12]
4.2. INITIAL RESEARCH 25

As well as the advantages and disadvantages highlighted according to the criteria, there was
also research into the possible primary fuel and power source options for each traction motor
type. This can be seen next in Section 4.2.2. The decision on which traction motor and primary
fuel/power source is detailed with reasoning in Section 4.2.3.

4.2.2 Primary Fuels and Power Source for the Motors

Taking the four types of possible traction motor found into account, a number of options were
researched for primary power sources and fuel types to drive the motors. As there is considerable
cross-over between some of the options, the four different power sources and their relationship to
the traction motors are summarised in Figure 9 overleaf.
The options for primary fuel/power source were narrowed down to an electric battery system, a
hydrogen fuel cell, a petroleum fuel based ICE (which also includes petrol and diesel generators)
or a tank of compressed air. It was decided that due to the drawbacks of a pneumatic system,
both from the motors and issues regarding efficiently storing compressed air, it wasn’t really a
viable solution for the locomotive. Upon studying the rules for the IMechE Railway Challenge, it
was also found that “Refuelling from zero to 100% capacity shall take no longer than 90 seconds.
Refuelling shall not comprise the replacement of energy storage assets” [13]. With this taken
into account, batteries were also discounted as there would be no viable way to charge sufficient
capacity batteries in such a short time.
With either a hydrogen fuel cell or a petroleum based system left as choices, an analysis of the
possible combinations was performed to determine the most suitable for the project. This can be
seen briefly covered in Section 4.2.3.

Stored Compressed
Primary Fuel Type Electric Battery Hydrogen Fuel Cell Petroleum Based
Air

Petrol or Diesel Compressor or

Intermediate Step
Generator Pump

Internal
Traction Method Electric Motor Hydraulic Motor Pneumatic Motor
Combustion Engine

Figure 9: Summary of primary fuels/power sources and their relationships with various types of
traction motor
26 CHAPTER 4. TRACTION

4.2.3 General Concept Selection

After considerable consultation within the team, it was decided that an effective and relatively easily
implemented energy recovery system on the locomotive was paramount; it forms a key event in the
IMechE Railway Challenge. With this in mind, and taking into account their easy availability and
the wide range of in-depth information regarding them, electric motors were chosen to provide the
tractive force for the locomotive. Their many benefits, as outlined in Section 4.2.1, and their ability to
perform regenerative braking, meant that they were the most suitable choice for the project. Detail
on choosing the exact type and performance of the electric motors can be seen in Section 4.5.
With this decision on electric motors made, a primary power source was still to be chosen. The
requirements were that it would be able to supply electrical power to the traction motors, meaning
the options were essentially either a petrol/diesel generator or a hydrogen fuel cell. Considerable
research was undertaken into the benefits and drawbacks of each option, and although hydrogen
fuel cells are more desirable in many ways, including their lower operational noise, lack of polluting
emissions and stable DC power output, their cost was found to be prohibitive and outside of the
budget allocated for the team. Therefore, a primary power source of a petrol or diesel fuelled
generator was chosen, details of which can be seen in Section 4.7.
Before making decisions on the exact specifications of electric motor or generator, the perfor-
mance criteria of the traction system had to be determined. This is covered next in Section 4.3.

4.3 Required Performance HM

To correctly specify components such as the generator, drivetrain and electric motors, calculations
for the required performance of each of these were needed. However, they combine to provide the
locomotive its tractive force, and therefore the calculations had to encompass the whole locomotive,
from the rail to wheel interface through to the primary power source. Section 4.3.1 explains the
mechanics of the locomotive in operation and how they dictate the required performance of the
traction motors and drivetrain.
The next stage of specifying the performance was looking at the fixed parameters and restric-
tions applicable to the traction system and locomotive. This is covered in Section 4.3.2, and com-
bines with the theory discussed in Section 4.3.1 to give the calculations and results in Section 4.3.3.
From these, an overall concept of the traction system could be defined, with the required motor,
drivetrain and generator performance parameters outlined, as seen in Section 4.4. With this com-
plete, components could be designed and purchased, as seen later in Sections 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7.

4.3.1 Approach and Theory

The tractive performance of the locomotive is based on a variety of mechanical relationships. A
diagram highlighting these can be seen overleaf in Figure 10.
4.3. REQUIRED PERFORMANCE 27

Twheel Key
= Locomotive
Fwheel = Trailing Load
Mwheel.g.cos(α) = Weight
= Driving Force
= Parasitic Force
FRR = Normal Force
Fnormal = Torque

FTraction

FDrag

Figure 10: Forces acting on the locomotive while it is in motion

At first this appears to be a simple mechanics problem; a mass on a slope with a number of
forces acting on it. However, it can also be seen that the wheel to rail interface is more complex, with
frictional forces determining the maximum tangential driving force, and therefore supplied torque,
that each wheel can provide. The resultant forces on the locomotive can be summarised as seen
in Equation 4.3.1:

X
F = FTraction − FDrag − Mloco g sin(α) − Mextra g sin(α) (4.3.1)

Where FTraction is the total tractive force driving the locomotive forward, FDrag is the combination of
rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag, Mloco and Mextra are the mass of the locomotive and the
trailing load respectively, g is acceleration due to gravity and α is the angle of the slope.
If we let N be the number of driven wheels in contact with the rail, Mwheel be the mass of the
locomotive acting through each wheel and CF be the wheel to rail friction coefficient, then the
maximum tangential driving force for each wheel, Fwheel , can be defined as seen in Equation 4.3.3:

Mwheel = Mloco /N (4.3.2)

Fwheel = CF Fnormal = CF Mwheel g cos(α) (4.3.3)

Knowing this, FTraction was defined as follows in Equation 4.3.4:

FTraction = N × Fwheel = N × CF Mwheel g cos(α) (4.3.4)

This gives us the maximum tractive force that the wheel and rail interface can provide without wheel
28 CHAPTER 4. TRACTION

spin for any given CF value. This is a useful value to obtain as the traction event in the IMechE
Railway Challenge is scored on how quickly the locomotive can accelerate from standing and travel
a certain distance while pulling the trailing load, meaning that optimum tractive effort with as little
wheel spin as possible during acceleration is sought after.
Letting CRR be the coefficient of rolling resistance, then the resistive force on each wheel can
also be calculated as seen in Equation 4.3.5:

FRR = CRR Fnormal = CRR Mwheel g cos(α) (4.3.5)

However, FDrag is made up of both the rolling resistance of the wheels on the track and also the
aerodynamic drag on the train. To find this, the equation to calculate aerodynamic drag force, FD ,
was used [14]. This can be seen in Equation 4.3.6:

FD = 0.5 × CD Afrontal ρair u 2 (4.3.6)

Where CD is the coefficient of drag, Afrontal is the frontal area, ρair is the mass density of air and u
is the forward velocity. From this, the total resistive force on the locomotive, FDrag , can be defined
as seen in Equation 4.3.7:

FDrag = FRR + FD = CRR Mwheel g cos(α) + 0.5 × CD Afrontal ρair u 2 (4.3.7)

Using Equations 4.3.1, 4.3.4 and 4.3.7, a model of the locomotive could be developed with optimal
times for acceleration and performance. Parameters such as mass, number of driven wheels and
rail/wheel friction coefficient were adjustable, allowing the team to see the effects that changing
them caused.
However, to use the model to specify the performance requirements of the electric motors,
drivetrain and generator, further calculations were required. The values of maximum tangential
driving force per wheel, Fwheel , at different rail/wheel friction coefficients, can be used to find the
maximum torque per driven axle, Taxle , where each axle drives two wheels. This can be seen in
Equation 4.3.8:
Taxle = 2 × Fwheel × Rwheel (4.3.8)

Where Rwheel is the radius of the wheels. This relationship allowed the drivetrain and motor to be
designed to be able to provide adequate torque for full speed acceleration at the expected rail/wheel
friction levels. The required torque and speed of the motor to achieve this full speed acceleration
gave a required power input. This then allowed for the generator to be sized accordingly.
With the theory and governing equations established, certain parameters were fixed before any
calculations were made. The justification for these parameters being set as they are can be seen
in Section 4.3.2, with the calculations and results found in Section 4.3.3.

4.3.2 Restrictions and Fixed Parameters

A number of limitations in the performance of the locomotive came from the IMechE Technical
Specification [15]. The parameters that defined these limitations can be seen summarised in Ta-
ble 3.
4.3. REQUIRED PERFORMANCE 29

Controlled Parameter Value

Minimum Wheel Diameter, 2 × Rwheel 200 mm
Maximum Operating Speed, u 15 km/hr
Minimum Wheel/Rail Coeff. of Friction, CF 0.15
Maximum Wheel/Rail Coeff. of Friction, CF 0.6
Trailing Load Mass, Mextra 600 kg

Table 3: Parameters affecting traction performance stated in IMechE Technical Specification [15]

These values gave a baseline to develop the traction system from. Of particular note were the
maximum operating speed, range of friction coefficients and the trailing load mass. The wheel size
for the locomotive was decided as Rwheel = 125 mm based on calculations performed in cooperation
with the Bogies sub-team which can be seen in Section 8.9.1. It was also decided that there would
be a total of four axles and that ideally all eight wheels would be driven to maximise the possible
tractive effort, meaning that N = 8.
To find a suitable coefficient of rolling resistance, research was done on typical values found
in the rail industry. Generally, rolling resistance increased as axle load and travelling speed de-
creased. Figures for full sized locomotives are in the range of CRR = 0.00013 - 0.0002 [16]. How-
ever, as the miniature locomotive has a significantly lower axle load and speed than a full sized
equivalent, a value of CRR = 0.004 was chosen as an estimate, which, although likely too high,
will have a small effect on the performance calculations due to the low value of rolling resistance
with steel wheel on steel rail contacts anyway. The efficiency of the motor and drivetrain is as-
sumed to be 85%, which reflects the high efficiency of most electric motors and most mechanical
transmissions.
The information given so far allows calculations on the required axle torque and speed, and
therefore motor and drivetrain specification, needed for optimum locomotive performance in the
traction event. However, to be able to specify the generator and get an estimate of the total energy
that will be required to run the locomotive, the guidance in the IMechE Technical Specification was
used, that states“The locomotive shall provide self-contained motive power and be able to operate
for three hours without refuelling, on the basis that operation comprises continuous travel at 5 km/h
on a 5% gradient with a 400 kg trailing load of negligible friction” [15]. This information provided
sufficient input parameters to get an idea of the total energy capacity that would be required.

4.3.3 Calculations and Results

Using the governing equations stated in Section 4.3.1 and the parameters found in Section 4.3.2,
Excel spreadsheets were used to calculate the performance of the locomotive. The first calculations
looked at how the maximum rate of acceleration, and therefore time required to accelerate to full
speed with a trailing load, were affected by rail/wheel friction coefficient variation. From these
results, maximum required axle torque values were found, and different drivetrain gearing ratios
were experimented with. The number of motors in the locomotive, and therefore the number of
axles driven by each, was decided through cooperation with the Bogies sub-team to be one motor
per bogie. This configuration, popular on French locomotives and known as a ‘monomotor’ [17],
gives each motors two axles to drive, and it was assumed for the calculations that the torque
provided by the motor would be split evenly between the pair of axles in the bogie. From this, and
through changing the drivetrain gearing ratio, the required motor torque and speed characteristics
for constant maximum acceleration at different coefficients of friction were found, giving a good
30 CHAPTER 4. TRACTION

idea of the motor specifications that would be required for the locomotive. The spreadsheet used
can be seen overleaf in Figure 11.
Taking an average friction coefficient of CF = 0.35, it can be seen that the power requirement for
maximum acceleration is around 3.75 kW per motor. The speed and torque, which multiply to give
the power requirement, can be adjusted through the gearing ratio, giving a wider range of possible
motor options. For this friction coefficient, a predicted acceleration time from standing to full speed
is 2.87 s while attached to the trailing load, assuming no gradient. Two motors in the 3.5 kW to
6 kW rated power range were decided as suitable for the locomotive.
For specifying the generator, and the energy capacity required for operation, further calculations
were carried out. These took the assumed average friction coefficient of CF = 0.35 and used the
IMechE guidelines on typical operation. The spreadsheet for these calculations can be seen in
Figure 12.
Total energy consumption of around 2.6 kWh was found to be reasonable. This could be
achieved with a generator only producing around 1 kW of power for a number of hours, but this
was found to likely limit the available current and torque. Therefore, a 2.6 kW - 3.0 kW generator
capable of a run time of 3 hours or more under normal load was decided to be the best option.
With these results, an overall system concept could be specified, as seen in Section 4.4.

4.4 Overall Traction System Concept

With calculations complete and a range of results found, the overall concept of the traction system
could be created. Alongside the work presented here in Chapter 4, work from the Energy Recovery
and Bogies sub-teams was also needed to finalise the concept. With research into a variety of
options, covered in Sections 4.5 to 4.8, a primarily 48 V DC system was decided on, which gave
a good range of options for both the Energy Recovery and Electronics and Control sub-teams. A
summary of the overall concept can be seen below in Table 4.

Component Comments Quantity

Electric Motor 3.5 kW - 6 kW rated power 2
2.6 kW - 3 kW rated power, ideally
Generator 1
capable of producing 48 V DC output
Ratio 5:1 - 10:1, capable of driving
Drivetrain 2
two axles from one motor shaft.
Likely a capacitor or battery,
compatible with 48 V DC system,
Energy Recovery 1
also able to provide extra current for
acceleration at higher rates.
Capable of speed control of two
Motor Control motors and supplying roughly 12 kW 1
peak power.

Table 4: Overview of traction system concept for locomotive

Due to the fact the rest of the system would be largely DC, and that AC motors were often
more expensive, it was decided to discount them and focus on choosing DC motors that would
meet the requirements. The relatively simple speed control and high levels of experience available
to the team from the faculty also made the case for DC motors to be chosen. With the concept
specified, the components to satisfy the requirements needed to be chosen and designed for,
which is covered in the next five sections.
 Traction Motor and Transmission Requirements Calculations Sheet 1: Mechanical Calculations for Finding Required Motor/Gearing Specifications

Rail/Wheel Calculations Overall Performance Calculations

C_F: Rail/Wheel M_wheel: Weight per F_wheel: Max Wheel Driving F_Traction: Total Locomotive F_Drag: Drag + Rolling Overall Driving Max. Accel Max. Accel 0-15km/h
Key Values Friction Coeff. Wheel (N) Force Before Slip (N) Tractive Force (N) Resistance (N) Force (N) Unloaded (m/s^2) Loaded (m/s^2) Time (s)
Maximum Velocity (m/s) 4.17 0.15 551.81 82.77 662.18 22.76 639.41 1.42 0.61 6.84
Wheel Radius (m) 0.125 0.2 551.81 110.36 882.90 22.76 860.14 1.91 0.82 5.09
Rail Friction Low 0.15 0.25 551.81 137.95 1103.63 22.76 1080.86 2.40 1.03 4.05
Rail Friction High 0.6 0.3 551.81 165.54 1324.35 22.76 1301.59 2.89 1.24 3.36
Estimated Loco Mass (kg) 450 0.35 551.81 193.13 1545.08 22.76 1522.31 3.38 1.45 2.87
Trailing Mass (kg) 600 0.4 551.81 220.73 1765.80 22.76 1743.04 3.87 1.66 2.51
Number of Driven Wheels 8 0.45 551.81 248.32 1986.53 22.76 1963.76 4.36 1.87 2.23
Number of Motors 2 0.5 551.81 275.91 2207.25 22.76 2184.49 4.85 2.08 2.00
Rolling Resistance Coef. 0.004 0.55 551.81 303.50 2427.98 22.76 2405.21 5.34 2.29 1.82
Gravity, g (m/s^2) 9.81 0.6 551.81 331.09 2648.70 22.76 2625.94 5.84 2.50 1.67
Motor to Axle Ratio, G 5
Transmission Efficiency 0.85 As stated in the Loco weight divided The maximum tangential The per-wheel driving force The total rolling Tractive force Simple Simple t = v/a
Aerodynamic Drag Force (N) 5.10 Technical by number of wheels. force produced by a driving multiplied by number of resistance of the minus the rolling rearrangement of rearrangement
Specification wheel before slipping is driving wheels. locomoive. This is given resistance. F=ma, where F is of F=ma, where
given by: by: overall driving force, F is overall
driving force, m
F = coefficient of friction x F = coefficient of rolling
normal weight on wheel
4.4. OVERALL TRACTION SYSTEM CONCEPT

Motor/Drivetrain Calculations
Wheel/Track Max. Wheel T_axle: Max. Axle Torque Req. Torque Motor Torque Req. Motor Req. Motor Req. Motor
Friction Coeff. Drive Force (N) (Nm) Out of Trans. (Nm) w/ G:1 Ratio (Nm) Speed w/ G:1 (rad/s) Speed w/ G:1 (rpm) Power w/G:1 (W)
0.15 82.77 20.69 41.39 9.74 166.67 1591.55 1622.98
0.2 110.36 27.59 55.18 12.98 166.67 1591.55 2163.97
0.25 137.95 34.49 68.98 16.23 166.67 1591.55 2704.96
0.3 165.54 41.39 82.77 19.48 166.67 1591.55 3245.96
0.35 193.13 48.28 96.57 22.72 166.67 1591.55 3786.95
0.4 220.73 55.18 110.36 25.97 166.67 1591.55 4327.94
0.45 248.32 62.08 124.16 29.21 166.67 1591.55 4868.93
0.5 275.91 68.98 137.95 32.46 166.67 1591.55 5409.93
0.55 303.50 75.87 151.75 35.71 166.67 1591.55 5950.92
0.6 331.09 82.77 165.54 38.95 166.67 1591.55 6491.91

As stated in the From F7-F16 Max Driving Force = 0.5 x
Technical Max Axle Torque/Wheel
Specification Radius. Rearranged to find
the max axle torque. This
assumes torque is split
evenly between the two
As motor will be driving two
axles, the required torque
output from the transmission
is double the single axle value.
Applying the gear ratio, With the gear With the gear ratio G,
G, and the transmission ratio G, the the motor's required
efficiency, gives the motor's required speed to acheive the
required motor output speed to acheive 15km/h target is
torque. the 15km/h above in rpm, giving
target is above in the average value we

Figure 11: Excel spreadsheet showing performance calculations for specification of traction motors
31
 32

Traction Motor and Transmission Requirements Calculations Sheet 2: 3 Hours at 5km/h on a 5% Gradient with 400kg Load Calculations

Rail/Wheel Calculations Overall Performance Calculations

C_F: M_wheel: F_wheel: Max F_Traction: F_Drag: Net
Rail/Wheel Weight per Wheel Driving Max Locomotive Slope Drag + Rolling Total Maximum Driving Max. Accel 0-5km/h
Key Values Friction Coeff. Wheel (N) Force Before Slip (N) Tractive Force (N) Resistance (N) Resistance (N) Resistance (N) Force (N) Loaded (m/s^2) Time (s)
Travelling Velocity (m/s) 1.389 0.15 551.12 82.67 661.35 416.40 18.20 434.61 226.74 0.27 5.21
Wheel Radius (m) 0.125 0.2 551.12 110.22 881.80 416.40 18.20 434.61 447.19 0.53 2.64
Rail Friction Low 0.15 0.25 551.12 137.78 1102.25 416.40 18.20 434.61 667.64 0.79 1.77
Rail Friction High 0.6 0.3 551.12 165.34 1322.70 416.40 18.20 434.61 888.09 1.04 1.33
Estimated Loco Mass (kg) 450 0.35 551.12 192.89 1543.15 416.40 18.20 434.61 1108.54 1.30 1.06
Trailing Mass (kg) 400 0.4 551.12 220.45 1763.60 416.40 18.20 434.61 1328.99 1.56 0.89
Number of Driven Wheels 8 0.45 551.12 248.01 1984.05 416.40 18.20 434.61 1549.44 1.82 0.76
Number of Motors 2 0.5 551.12 275.56 2204.50 416.40 18.20 434.61 1769.89 2.08 0.67
Rolling Resistance Coef. 0.004 0.55 551.12 303.12 2424.95 416.40 18.20 434.61 1990.34 2.34 0.59
Gravity, g (m/s^2) 9.81 0.6 551.12 330.67 2645.40 416.40 18.20 434.61 2210.79 2.60 0.53
Motor to Axle Ratio, G 5
Gradient (%) 5 As stated in the Calculated as The maximum The per-wheel The force acting The total rolling Combined Maximum Simple t = v/a
Slope Angle (rad) 0.049958 Technical estimated tangential force driving force down the slope resistance of the resistance of Tractive force rearrangement
Transmission Efficiency 0.85 Specification locomotive produced by a driving multiplied by due to the locomoive and the slope, minus the total of F=ma, where
Average Motor Efficiency 0.85 mass multiplied wheel before slipping is number of driving locomotive and the aerodynamic rolling and F is overall
Aerodynamic Drag Force (N) 0.57 by acceleration given by: wheels. 600kg load's drag. drag against driving force, m
due to gravity, mass. Found the forwards
multiplied by F = coefficient of friction using motion of
cos(a) where a x normal weight on M*g*sin(a), the train.
is the angle of wheel where M is
the slope in total mass, g is
rads. divided by This gives maximum gravity, and a is
number of force the wheel can slope angle in
The calculations to the right find the driven wheels. rad.
power draw through the controller
and the energy consumed in Wh for 3 Continuous Speed Operation For 3 Hours
hours running, pulling a 600kg load, on Total Required Required Axle Required Motor Required Motor Required Motor Required Required Motor Total Power Draw Time Energy
a 5% gradient, at 5km/h, with friction Resistance (N) Wheel Force (N) Torque (Nm) Torque (Nm) Speed (rad/s) Speed (rpm) Current (A) Voltage (V) Controller (W) Spent (h) Consumed (Wh)
coefficient for acceleration at 0.35.
434.61 54.33 13.58 6.39 55.56 530.52 48.73 14.94 856.80 3.00 2570.41
These values were calculated to get an
idea for the overall energy capacity
required, as stated in section 4.1 of Accelerating to 5km/h With Load, On Slope
the Technical Specification. Average Maximum T_axle: Required Axle Required Motor Average Motor Average Motor Required Average Req. Avg. Power Draw Time Energy
Friction Coeff. Wheel Force (N) Torque (Nm) Torque (Nm) Speed (rad/s) Speed (rpm) Current (A) Motor Voltage (V) Controller (W) Spent (h) Consumed (Wh)
0.35 192.89 48.22 22.69 27.78 265.26 200.61 7.47 1498.96 0.00 0.44

Figure 12: Excel spreadsheet showing performance calculations for specification of generator
CHAPTER 4. TRACTION
4.5. ELECTRIC DC MOTOR SELECTION 33

4.5 Electric DC Motor Selection HM

4.5.1 Required Torque and Speed Output

Required axle rotational speeds were defined by the maximum speed of the train and the size of
the wheels; the desired torque was also known for optimal acceleration. However, the gearing
ratio of the transmission would affect the requirements of the motor, with larger gearing ratios
generally being trickier to implement. Motors of adequate torque performance at the power required
were found to have maximum rotational speeds of 1500 rpm to 5000 rpm, with operating voltages
between 24 V and 48 V. For the 48 V DC system, two possibilities were discussed for wiring the
motors; in parallel each would have a maximum of 48 V between the terminals, rotating faster, but
the current drawn would be split between them. In series, they would divide the voltage as 24 V
each, with a shared current draw. The speed of the motors is dependent on the applied voltage,
whereas current drawn increases linearly with torque load. It was decided that as a speed reduction
and torque increase was required through the drivetrain, motors that could be used in series and
deliver the required torque while operating at 24 V and around 1600 rpm would be optimal, meaning
that the gear reduction chosen would only need to be around 5:1.

4.5.2 Limitations on Size and Positioning

Due to the motors being located within the bogies; in the ‘monomotor’ configuration, the size and
positioning were very important to allow ample space for other components, cooling, and an effec-
tive transmission from the motor shaft to both axles. It was decided that the motor should be placed
centrally to be equidistant from both axles, also ensuring equal torque distribution and balanced
operation. A number of designs found on full scale locomotives were studied and it was decided
that keeping the motor shaft parallel to the axles would be the simplest solution with regards to the
drivetrain. This meant that the main restrictions on size were the diameter of the motor being no
larger than 250 mm; so as to fit comfortably in the bogie without being larger than the wheels and
avoiding interference with the bogie to frame interaction. The length of the motor parallel to the
shaft would ideally be minimised to allow room for the transmission. The other consideration on
placement was how the motor would be securely mounted, and if the mounting would need to be
adjustable at all.

4.5.3 Comparison of Options

With considerations on motor performance and size considered, a number of possible options were
found. The high torque and power density required for the locomotive led to a number of options,
including brushed and brushless permanent magnet motors along with some series wound motors.
These varied in price and availability, but generally all had relatively high efficiency, often 85% or
above, and many could supply the required speed and torque. Figure 13 shows some examples of
the motors investigated.
Some of the higher power motors were found to require liquid cooling; these were dismissed as
there was not adequate space for the extra equipment that liquid cooling requires (pumps, hosing,
etc.) and plenty of air cooled options were capable of meeting the requirements. Due to the
similarity in performance of many of the available motors, it was decided that trying to find the most
efficient and compact option that would also satisfy the power requirements would be desirable.
The motor would need to be readily available and straightforward to control. It was decided that the
34 CHAPTER 4. TRACTION

(a) Lynch brushed PM type [18] (b) Etek brushless PM type [19] (c) Perm brushless PM type [20]

Figure 13: Various DC traction motors

brushed permanent magnet motors available from Lynch Motor Company (LMC) and Agni Motors
would be most suitable due to their compact ’pancake’ design, straightforward control and high
torque density. The motors are also capable of regenerative braking without any modification, and
the control systems to enable them to do this are relatively simple and commonplace. As the motor
designs from both companies were very similar, the more local company, LMC, was chosen to
supply the motors.

4.5.4 Lynch LEM170-127

A pair of Lynch LEM170-127 motors were chosen to supply the traction for the locomotive. With
a mass of 8.5 kg and a peak power rating of 16 kW, they were more than capable of meeting
the specification. The normal rated power of 5.54 kW was in the range that was calculated as
required, and with the motors also being rated to operate up to 48 V, any changes in series or
parallel wiring could be accommodated safely without having to purchase new motors. In series,
with each receiving 24 V, the speed constant of 75 rpm/V gives a top rotational speed of 1800 rpm,
which is above the 1592 rpm calculated in Figure 11, but would be speed controlled to ensure the
maximum speed limit was not exceeded. The torque constant of 0.12 Nm/A meant that at peak
current of 400 A, the motor could provide a peak torque of 48 Nm, well in excess of what would
required for the full acceleration on the expected track conditions.
The overhead performance in all aspects was intentional, as it was anticipated that in the future
years of this miniature locomotive project, the rules for the IMechE challenge may change, heav-
ier components may be added to the locomotive or more performance may be sought. With the
motors being more than capable, there is less chance they would need to be replaced for being
underpowered, and also less chance of being damaged due to working near their operating limits.
An image of the two motors undergoing initial bench-top testing can be seen in Figure 14. A data
sheet for the motors can be found in Appendix C.

4.6 Drivetrain and Transmission Selection/Design HM

4.6.1 Required Gearing Ratio and Torque Capability

With the motors chosen, it was known that a 5:1 gearing ratio would be ideal for achieving suit-
able torque for acceleration and having the upper limits of the motor speed match the maximum
operating speed of the locomotive. The transmission would also have to be designed so that it was
capable of transmitting adequate power, with the potential peak output torque at each axle being
4.6. DRIVETRAIN AND TRANSMISSION SELECTION/DESIGN 35

Figure 14: Lynch motors being bench tested

120 Nm.

4.6.2 Limitations on Size, Position and Maintainability

As the transmission is located in the bogie, along with the motor and numerous other components,
size and positioning are restricted. A number of options were explored with regard to the orientation
of the motor. Eventually it was decided to keep the motor shaft orientated parallel to the axles;
but right angled bevel gearboxes and differentials were considered to see if changing the motor
orientation would provide any benefit. Another consideration for the drivetrain was taken from the
IMechE Railway Challenge Rules, where the Maintainability Challenge event states “On a signal
from the judge the team members must remove one driven wheelset and place it in the location
specified by the judge” [13]. As the drivetrain would be linked to the wheelsets, it had to be easily
disconnected to allow removal and replacement.

4.6.3 Comparison of Options

Having the motors orientated with their shafts parallel to the axles, the transmission would need to
have a linkage from each motor to the axles. On some full scale ’monomotor’ designs, a direct gear
train from the motor shaft to the axles is designed, with the entirety of it enclosed and lubricated
within a gearbox housing. However, for ease of manufacture, cost and maintainability, this was
infeasible for the locomotive. A chain system was decided as the most simple option to supply
drive to two axles from the single central motor.
This still left further options available; an in-line gearbox could be mounted on the motor to
provide the initial reduction, followed by a simple 1:1 ratio linkage to the axles. An example of
a gearbox like this can be seen in Figure 15. An alternative option was to use a direct chain
linkage from the motor shaft to the axles, with the difference in the motor and axle sprocket teeth
numbers giving the required ratio of 5:1. A comparison of the costs led this design to be chosen;
the gearboxes that were capable of providing the 5:1 reduction and transmitting up to 120 Nm of
output torque were often in excess of £600 per unit, whereas the chain and sprocket system was
predicted to come to less than £200 in total.

4.6.4 Sprocket and Chain Design

Research into adequate chain specification was completed, with consideration of maximum torque
capability, wear characteristics and weight [22]. A 12.7 mm pitch chain, often known as 1/2" or
428 pitch, was found to be suitable. This chain specification is often found on motorbikes and
36 CHAPTER 4. TRACTION

Figure 15: Example of an epicyclic gear set [21]

was readily available. The speed reduction of 5:1 between the sprockets was directly achieved by
having the ratio of teeth to be equal to this value. After consideration of the maximum size of the
larger axle sprocket (which had to be smaller than the wheel diameter), a 50 tooth larger sprocket
was chosen, meaning that a smaller 10 tooth variant was required for the motor shaft. To drive
both axles from a single shaft, there would have to be two of the smaller sprockets mounted on it.
A rendered CAD image of the design, with the motor, chains and sprockets included, can be seen
in Figure 16. The design of keyways on the sprockets was required to ensure correct location and
power transmission. Also shown in the image is a motor mounting which is discussed further in
Section 4.9. Allowance for chain stretching was made by having the mount vertically adjustable so
that the distance between axle and motor shaft centres could be adjusted to take up the slack in
the chain.

Figure 16: CAD rendering of the proposed transmission design

4.7. GENERATOR SELECTION 37

4.7 Generator Selection HM

4.7.1 Required Electrical Output

From the performance calculations in Section 4.3, the generator was found to need a power output
of around 2.6 kW - 3.0 kW. Ideally, the output would be 48 V DC to be compatible with the rest of the
system. However, DC generators are particularly rare, especially in the UK. Generators that serve
as mobile mains electricity replacements, i.e. at 230 V AC, are very common. With this in mind, a
number of options were considered to be able to supply the 48 V DC that the rest of the traction
system would require. For the motors drawing their peak current for maximum acceleration, the
energy recovery system was designed to help supply extra current alongside the generator, hence
not specifying a 10 kW+ generator.

4.7.2 Limitations on Size, Noise and Vibration

One of the main issues with many petrol and diesel generators is their size and weight. Often
3 kW generators are in excess of 70 kg and the volume they occupy has to be able to fit upon the
frame of the locomotive, particularly inside the loading gauge specified in the IMechE Technical
Specifications [15]. The high mass levels also provide an issue as central placement was likely
to be required to ensure the locomotive was balanced. Other notable considerations for generator
selection were the noise and vibration that they produce. Two of the IMechE Railway Challenge
events are directly influenced by these: the Noise and Ride Comfort challenges [13]. Minimising the
operational noise and the amount of vibration transmitted into the rest of the locomotive chassis
was decided as a key factor in scoring well in the events as the generator is the primary noise
and vibrational component in the locomotive. Other considerations included heat generation and
adequate ventilation, which have considerable effects on the rest of the locomotive design.

4.7.3 Comparison of Options

A number of options were considered. What seemed like the most suitable was a 3 kW 48 V
DC diesel generator supplied by Utility Free Living. However, issues with cost and a considerable
delivery time due to shipping from China meant that it was not logistically a viable option. Another
DC generator was the Alphagen DCX3000, but again the cost and overseas delivery meant that
it wasn’t an acceptable option either. The team were unable to find any 48 V DC generator sets
in the UK, meaning that the only other option of directly generating 48 V DC would be to utilise a
small petrol engine and a 48 V alternator, essentially designing a generator system from scratch.
Although plausible, the team did not have the time nor expertise to achieve this. Figure 17 shows
the two DC generators that would have been suitable apart from their price and long lead times.
Therefore, it was decided that the optimal solution for the team would be to purchase a gener-
ator outputting 230 V AC and convert this output to DC through external equipment. A huge range
of options were available for generators with this specification, and there were a number of options
to convert the supply to DC. Both ‘conventional’ and ‘inverter’ type generators were considered
for the 230 V AC supply. Conventional generators are simply an ICE driving an alternator with a
voltage regulator, and these increase the engine speed to match demand load. Inverter type gen-
erators however use a rectifier and inverter circuit to produce their AC output. Because the power
electronics controls the output, inverter generators are run at a more efficient constant speed, with
variations in load being accounted for within the rectifier and inverter. Due to this extra efficiency,
38 CHAPTER 4. TRACTION

(a) Utility Free Living DC3000S [23] (b) Alphagen DCX3000 [24]

Figure 17: Two possible DC generator sets

they are often smaller, lighter and more quiet than conventional generators, though more expensive
due to their added complexity.
It was decided within the team that the extra expense would be worthwhile for the reduced
noise output and mass, therefore an ‘inverter’ type generator producing 230 V AC was settled
on. A 2.8 kW model was found which is detailed further in Section 4.7.4. To convert the 230 V
AC output into the 48 V DC required for the traction system, a number of options were again
considered. These included creating a rectifier circuit, using a linear DC power supply or using a
DC switched mode power supply (SMPS). The extra steps required to design and manufacture a
custom rectifier circuit, with adequate safety, meant that it was discarded. The comparison between
linear and switched mode power supplies had the SMPS come out far ahead; they are considerably
more efficient, lighter and smaller than equivalent linear power supplies. Therefore a 3 kW single
output SMPS was found, the details of which are discussed in Section 4.7.4. It was chosen as it
was capable of taking an AC input between 180 V and 264 V and outputting at 48 V DC, with a
rated current of 62.5 A.

4.7.4 Evopower EVO3000Ei and MW RSP-3000

The inverter generator that was chosen is the Evopower EVO3000Ei. Features including remote
electronic start were sought after as many generators only feature recoil start. With a mass of
32 kg, it was also considerably lighter than many other generators, giving it a good power density.
For the purposes of the project, the 230 V AC 13 A output is wired directly to the input terminals of
the MW RSP-3000 SMPS. This is what converts to the required 48 V DC output, and was chosen
for its flexibility with input voltages, remote operation capabilities and inbuilt safety features. It is also
relatively compact and light. Images of the generator and power supply can be seen in Figure 18.
These two components, when combined with the storage used for the energy recovery system,
can supply the electrical power to the motors when they draw the significant current required to
accelerate at a fast rate. However, the motors need to be correctly controlled to utilise the available
power, and for this a motor controller had to be specified.
4.8. MOTOR CONTROL 39

(a) Evopower EVO3000Ei Generator [25] (b) RS-3000 SMPS [26]

Figure 18: Generator and SMPS chosen to power locomotive traction system

4.8 Motor Control HM

4.8.1 Requirements
With the motors decided on, a number of different methods of control for permanent magnet DC
motors were considered. The main features needed were variable speed control, the ability to
perform regenerative braking, forward and reverse modes, and ideally a switchable free-wheeling
mode for the energy recovery challenge. It would need to be able to cope with a high current draw
for the acceleration events, likely between 200 A and 400 A.
Due to the close integration with the rest of the electronics and control of the locomotive, these
requirements were passed on to the sub-team working on that area. Detail on the 4QD-300 con-
troller that was chosen for the system can be seen in Section 7.5. This also includes detail of all of
the bench top testing that was undertaken for the traction system before it was assembled into the
locomotive. Further testing, with the traction system driving a load, can be found in Section 13.2.

4.9 Design and Manufacture of Traction System HM

4.9.1 Design of Motor Mount and Sprocket Adapter

With the major components of the traction system decided on, the motors required a way to inte-
grate securely into the bogie design. A view of the designed motor mount can be seen in Figure 19.
It was designed to be made from 3 mm mild steel plate. Also seen are the FEA results for the mount;
it was simulated with the maximum motor torque of 40 Nm being applied through the mounting bolt
holes, assuming the top face was rigidly fixed to the bogie frame. The minimum factor of safety
was given as 19.4 and there was minimal displacement.
Due to delays in manufacture and delivery of the required larger drive sprockets for the driv-
etrain, adapters were designed to allow motorbike sprockets to be used with the axles of the lo-
comotive. These were also designed to be made from 3 mm mild steel plate, with two adapters
placed either side of the sprocket. FEA was used assuming a 100 Nm torque applied to the radial
bolt holes and a sliding interface between the key faces and the axle keyways. The adapter design
and FEA stress results can be seen in Figure 20.
40 CHAPTER 4. TRACTION

(a) CAD of motor mount (b) FEA stress results plot

Figure 19: Motor mounting and FEA results

(a) CAD of sprocket adapter (b) FEA stress results plot

Figure 20: Sprocket adapter and FEA results

4.9.2 Manufacture and Fabrication of Motor Mount, Sprocket Adapters and

Motor Shaft Spacers
Laser cutting and CNC bending were used to manufacture the motor mounts and sprocket adapters.
This ensured accurate results due to the high precision of the laser cutter, and the lead time and
price were significantly reduced compared to normal machining methods. This process was under-
taken outside of the university as the laser cutting service provided in the EDMC was not adequate.
Spacers were manufactured using the lathe in the student workshop, giving adequate spacing
between the small sprockets on the motor shafts for two chains to run. An image of the motor with
these spacers can be seen below in Figure 21.

Figure 21: Motor with machined spacers, small sprockets and mount

The process of developing the entire traction system generated many possible design choices,
some of which were not feasible for this project in its first year. Based on experience gained this
year, areas for further work are outlined in Section 14.
5. Energy Recovery
5.1 Introduction PN
In conventional vehicles, energy is lost through braking. Braking friction extracts the kinetic energy
from the rotating wheels causing the vehicle to decelerate, generating heat and sound [27] [28].
Energy recovery systems aim to reduce this loss.
A Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) can be implemented as an attempt to harvest some
of the kinetic energy lost during deceleration. The energy is then stored in a manageable form from
which useful energy can once again be extracted. This particular style of system is implemented in
Formula One racing cars [29]. The driver is able to store energy extracted from corner braking and
choose to release at key moments for overtaking manoeuvres. However, KERS is also likely to have
strong success in an urban environment where inconsistent traffic speeds are common [30] [31].
There are many considerations with KERS, these lie not only with how to extract the energy from
the moving vehicle but also in choosing how to store the energy. Every time an energy changes
form there are inherent losses [32]. Batteries are commonly used to store energy in automobiles
[33]; however, despite having a large energy density, batteries are heavy in comparison to more
efficient methods. The mass of the KERS should be taken into account when designing the system.
For maximum effectiveness, it is important to ensure that the KERS storage device is able to
store all energy present before braking. For the energy recovery challenge the locomotive will be
coupled to a 600 kg trailing load and so the mass of the train will be a combination of the two.
This total recoverable kinetic energy was estimated at 9115 J. The rail application for the energy
recovery system requires a large power density over that of a large energy density. This factor was
taken into account when researching options for the locomotive as specific power relates to the
acceleration of the vehicle and specific energy is related to the range [34]. The maximum speed
stipulated in the IMechE technical specification is 15 km/h (4.17 m/s) [15]. In the following sections,
the potential KERS systems are investigated and evaluated.

5.2 Potential Energy Recovery Systems

5.2.1 Flywheels PN
Flywheels are rotating mechanical devices that already exist in most vehicles. They can be rep-
resented by a rotating disc or cylinder centred about an axle with a large moment of inertia. Fly-
wheels are usually manufactured from steel but the use of composite materials is currently being
researched and manufactured [35] [36]. Energy is transferred to the device by applying torque to
increase the angular velocity of the flywheel. The angular kinetic energy that can be stored in a
flywheel design is a function of the inertia and the angular velocity [37]. Since the angular kinetic
energy is proportional to the square of the angular velocity, a small increase in rotational speed will
cause a large increase in the capacity. As the moment of inertia is proportional to the square of the
radius, an increase in diameter is more favourable over an increase in density [37].
One advantage of a flywheel is that it can reach a fully charged state very quickly as it is not
limited by a charging rate in the same way as a battery. The coefficient of friction between the clutch

41
42 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

and flywheel would dictate the maximum rotational acceleration possible. By the same notion, this
gives the flywheel the ability to deliver a large amount of power for a short period of time. Safety is
a serious consideration where flywheels are concerned as a large mass spinning at high speeds
can cause harm if it were to become unstable. A strong housing is required when designing such a
mechanism. Purely mechanical flywheel systems also have the complication of integrating another
mechanical clutch and geared drive system.

Electro-mechanical

The Gyrobus was an electric vehicle used in Switzerland in the mid twentieth century. It utilised an
electrical flywheel in lieu of battery packs. Electromechanical flywheels use electricity to spin up a
flywheel, the reverse operation then enables the rotational energy to be converted back to electrical
energy. This idea was good in principle but the Gyrobus proved to be problematic as minor faults in
the bearings would cause a rapid deceleration of the flywheel resulting in more frequent stops for
recharging of the bus. Not only was this inconvenient but the buses were also far more expensive
than regular fossil fuel vehicles so the project was dropped [38].
Despite this early setback, research and development into more affordable and reliable sys-
tems for commercial use has been taking place [39]. Much larger electromechanical flywheels are
planned to be implemented into the National Grid as a method of storing excess energy, with a
view to discharging the system to increase the Grid output at times of peak demand [40].
Flywheels appeared to be promising as they have the possibility of a larger efficiency than
batteries [41]. The losses in the electromechanical flywheel system occur through contact friction
in the bearings and air resistance opposing the angular velocity. For improved efficiency, the system
preferably requires a vacuum to limit the effects of air resistance during operation. The losses can
further be reduced by implementing magnetic bearings between the flywheel and shaft. This type
of bearing supports its load via magnetic levitation without the need for physical contact, so friction
is eliminated and the mechanical wear substantially reduced [42]. Magnetic bearings are also able
to operate within a vacuum where conventional bearings fail due to lack of lubrication.
For the current project, companies including Torotrak plc and Williams Advanced Engineering
Ltd were contacted with regard to supplying an electromechanical flywheel. However, it proved
difficult finding a supplier able to provide a product suitable for the project requirements and the
quotes obtained were far in excess of the budget. Despite suggested commercial research into
smaller and more compact designs, it was deemed unfeasible to purchase a compact system on
the current budget.

5.2.2 Elastically-Based Mechanical Energy Storage CL

When braking using an elastically based mechanical energy storage system, the kinetic energy of
the locomotive is converted into potential strain energy. Bungee cords or springs are wound up
using a planetary gear set powered off the locomotive’s axles. When the train needs to decelerate
the planetary gear set engages, winding up the spring. As the spring/bungee winds up and the
potential energy increases, the locomotive decelerates. The energy can be held in the spring for
long periods of time with little dissipation.
When the locomotive needs to accelerate away, the spring’s or bungee’s energy is transferred
back through the planetary gearbox to the wheels. To increase the system efficiency, the spring
is wound up over a short distance and released over a longer distance, causing the locomotive to
5.2. POTENTIAL ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEMS 43

decelerate quickly and accelerate slowly. This reduces energy losses and the possibility of wheel
spin. The options of storing energy in both a rubber elastomer or in a coiled steel spring have been
considered.

Elastic

The energy density of rubber is 11 kJ/kg, 27.5 times greater than that of spring steel [43]. Still elas-
tic (rubber) has its limitations. The low Young’s modulus results in a large material strain needed to
store sufficient energy, approximately 600% strain [43]. Implementing this system requires clamp-
ing the ends of the material, this often includes stress raises and can initiate crack propagation,
leading to fatigue. The elasticity of the material is highly temperature dependant, so different strains
are required in different environments, this poses control integration issues. Finally, the life cycle of
the cable is very unpredictable, even with strain levels remaining within their elastic limit, if the ca-
bles are exposed to an abrasive species such as grit or exposed to UV radiation, then the material
can deteriorate in tens of cycles as opposed to thousands as predicted. To add to these problems,
the loading process is inherently inefficient; during the load/unload cycle a significant amount of
energy is dissipated as heat, as shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22: Energy lost during a load-unload cycle

Spring

Spring energy storage is similar to a bungee cord in that energy is stored as potential strain en-
ergy, though the limitations are very different. Steel can function in a far wider temperature range,
it possesses a superior, more predictable cycle life which makes it a far safer material to work
with. The principal issue with spring systems is that the energy density of steel is particularly low,
0.4 kJ/kg [43]. For the application specified in Section 5.1, 21 kg of steel wound into coils or springs
would be required to provide 9115 J of energy storage.

5.2.3 Hydraulic & Compressed Gas PN

Hydraulic energy recovery systems use pressurised fluid as a medium for storing energy. Hydraulic
hybrid vehicles are already in existence today and claim to have very high efficiencies (up to 80%)
[44]. They operate by extracting energy from the vehicle as a form of braking, this energy is then
used to drive a pump which is used to compress the fluid. The fluid is drawn from a reservoir and
pumped into a piston, bladder or diaphragm type accumulator [45]. The accumulator is able to
44 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

store the compressed fluid for use in energy storage and recovery [46].
The problems foreseen with this type of system were mainly thermodynamic in nature. It was
predicted that the chosen fluid would increase in temperature under compression and so the system
would need suitable insulation, otherwise this thermal energy could be emitted and lost to the
surroundings [47]. Also, the sound emitted from the pump is wasted energy and may be problematic
in the noise control assessment. An additional factor included the security of the system as a small
leak at any point would be difficult to detect and could cause significant pressure loss. As with
elastic systems, controlling the release of the pressurised system would also present problems.
Although a high pressure to begin with would be beneficial, it would quickly drop and become very
ineffective. Being difficult to achieve a perfect system, the notion of hydraulic recovery was dropped
for this design, however this KERS could be trialled by others in the future as a potential KERS.

5.2.4 Batteries HMF

Rechargeable batteries utilise energy supplied through a power source across the terminals to drive
electrochemical reactions [48]. The reduction and oxidation reactions that occur when charging
a battery are non-spontaneous and so require an external energy input, in this case captured
regenerative energy. When it is desired to use the stored energy for a particular task, spontaneous
release of the energy is allowed to occur [49]. This release of energy occurs with the same, but
opposite reactions of the charging cycle. This is the case for an ideal battery.
In a real (non-ideal) battery the process of charging/discharging is not fully reversible due to
irreversible phase changes in the electrolyte, which ultimately retards the functionality of the cell so
as to eventually render it useless [48]. The typical charge cycle life of a Lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery
has significantly improved from what was possible a number of years ago, with 80% original charge
capacity possible after 2000 cycles [50]. Even with this improvement, battery charge cycle life,
which is a critical attribute of energy storage mediums in regenerative braking situations is still
limited.
The specific energy of batteries, particularly Li-ion is very high, with around ten times the en-
ergy capacity of comparable size supercapacitors, 180 Wh/kg [48] as compared to 20 Wh/kg [51].
As can be seen in Figure 23 the higher specific energy of batteries comes at the expense of spe-
cific power in relation to supercapacitors. Batteries have a specific power of 700-1300 W/kg [48],
compared to the 3300 W/kg offered by particular supercapacitors [52].
Batteries are a popular energy storage technique in hybrid and completely electrically powered
transport applications, but the use is predominantly as a primary energy storage bank and not as
an energy recovery storage medium. This is mostly due to the low specific power of the technology,
which then results in a large mass of batteries required in the high power transfer application.
5.2. POTENTIAL ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEMS 45

Figure 23: Ragone plot displaying the specific power and specific energy various storage mediums
[53]

5.2.5 Supercapacitor HMF

Supercapacitors store electrical energy via polarisation of an electrolytic solution that separates
electrodes [48]. The electrodes, similar to when used in conventional capacitors, store energy
by build-up of charge on one plate, achieved by an applied voltage. The stored energy can then
be released via flow of charge (current) in the opposite direction. High electrode surface area,
which can approach 2000 m2 /g [54] allows for correspondingly large capacitance values [55], and
therefore energy storage capacity [53].
The specific energy of supercapacitors is lower than that of comparable batteries (see Fig-
ure 23). It can also be seen from inspection of Figure 23 that the specific power of supercapacitors
is significantly higher when compared to that of batteries.
Cycle lives upwards of one million cycles is typical within these devices. This is due to energy
being stored through the means of no chemical reactions or phase changes, and therefore the pro-
cess is almost completely reversible, imposing few limitations on the number of cycles the unit can
be taken through [48].Each supercapacitor cell is limited to a maximum voltage of approximately
2.5-2.7 V, which limits use in high voltage situations. To overcome this limitation the cells can be
arranged in series, with voltage management systems being incorporated to ensure no single cell
becomes overcharged if unit strings go above three supercapacitor cells [56]. This technique is
utilised to create higher voltage modules, which have a large number of cells both in series and
parallel to achieve desired voltage and capacitance values. For instance, Maxwell use a total of
eighteen 3000 F cells in series to achieve a 48 V, 165 F module [52].
As with any energy storage medium, the charging of a supercapacitor has intrinsic associated
losses [57]. The inefficiency of charge is a result of resistive losses in the charging pathway, but
the extent of energy loss can be mitigated through careful management of initial and final super-
capacitor charge states, as explained in Section 5.3.2. Self-discharge rates of supercapacitors are
generally above that of batteries [48], so if the intended use was for long term energy storage this
negative attribute would have to be further investigated. For the purposes of the project however,
46 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

this has little impact on the system capabilities.

Alongside favourable specific power properties the ability of supercapacitors to carry out charge/dis-
charge cycles almost indefinitely make it an ideal high power energy storage medium.

5.2.6 Chosen Method HMF

Selection Considerations

In order to evaluate the suitability of each energy storage method for the task required, a number
of important considerations are explored:

• Cost • Safety
• Cycle Life • Scalability
• Drive Integration • Specific Power
• Control Integration • Specific Energy
• Efficiency • Stored Energy Retention
• Reliability and Simplicity • Weight

To quantify the relative importance of each of the design considerations listed above analysis
carried out in the form of a binary matrix is displayed in Table 5. Stored Energy Retention

Offset Product Score

Control Integration

Normalised Score
Drive Integration

Specific Energy
Specific Power

Product Score
Scalability
Reliability

Simplicity
Efficiency
Cycle life

Weight
Safety
Cost

Control Integration x 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 9 9.89%

Cost 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 4 5 5.49%
Cycle life 0 1 x 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 6 7 7.69%
Drive Integration 1 1 1 x 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 11 12.09%
Efficiency 1 1 1 1 x 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 12 13.19%
Reliability 1 1 1 0 0 x 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 7 8 8.79%
Safety 1 1 1 1 1 1 x 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 13 14.29%
Scalability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.10%
Simplicity 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 x 1 0 0 1 4 5 5.49%
Specific Energy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 x 0 0 0 1 2 2.20%
Specific Power 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 x 1 1 8 9 9.89%
Stored Energy Retention 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 x 1 5 6 6.59%
Weight 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 x 2 3 3.30%
Total 91 100.00%

Table 5: Binary weighting matrix showing relative importance of energy storage medium parame-
ters

Once the relative weighted importance of each design consideration was found, analysis of
each storage method was carried out. Each method is ranked with regards to the others in how
well it meets the specific design criteria. The weighted importance of each consideration, defined
in Table 5, was then applied and the final energy storage method score evaluated, the results of
which are shown in Table 6.
5.3. SUPERCAPACITORS 47

Stored Energy Retention

Control Integration

Drive Integration

Specific Energy
Specific Power

Overall Score
Scalability
Reliability

Simplicity
Efficiency
Cycle life

Weight
Safety
Cost
Battery 7 4 3 7 3 7 7 6 7 7 5 7 3 5.66
Elastic 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 1 7 1.87
Flywheel (electrical) 5 1 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 3 5 4 4.27
Flywheel (Mechanical) 4 5 6 4 6 5 3 4 3 4 4 6 5 4.53
Hydraulic 3 2 4 3 5 2 4 3 1 3 6 3 1 3.46
Spring 2 6 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2.19
Supercapacitor 6 3 7 6 7 6 6 7 6 6 7 4 6 6.02

Table 6: Overall score of energy storage medium suitability

It can be seen from inspection of Table 6 that the method with the overall highest score is the
supercapacitor and is therefore the chosen energy recovery storage method.

5.3 Supercapacitors HMF

5.3.1 Pre-Charge Allowance

It is important to note throughout the rest of this section that allowance has been received from
the IMechE stating that the chosen energy storage method is permitted to contain energy before
entering the energy recovery challenge. This rule clarification was made alongside another point;
that only the recovered kinetic energy is to be used in fulfilling the aim of the challenge (moving the
locomotive), and not the residual supercapacitor charge. Permission was sought after when it was
found that using a pre-charged capacitor yields higher energy storage efficiency. This is the reason
that the pre-charged state of the capacitor is incorporated into the following section.

5.3.2 Supercapacitors HMF

Basic capacitor charging theory gives the voltage across a capacitor as a function of time VC (t),
Equation 5.3.1 has been adapted to include effect of pre-charged state from [58]:

−t
VC (t) = VC (0) + (Vin − VC (0))(1 − e RC ) (5.3.1)

where VC (0) is capacitor voltage at t = 0s, Vin is voltage supplied by source, R is circuit series
resistance, C is rated capacitance of capacitor and t is time. Rearranging Equation 5.3.1 we achieve
a simplified equation of capacitor voltage with time, given below [57]:

−t
VC (t) = Vin − (Vin − VC (0))e RC (5.3.2)

Using the I = V /R relation to give the current through the circuit as a function of time IC (t) [59]
[57]:

Vin − VC (0) −t
IC (t) = e RC (5.3.3)
Z
48 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

Using this, the energy dissipated as heat in the resistor as a function of time EVin → Z (t) can
be given by integrating the value of power of the resistor [57], found using P = VI :

t
C(V C (0) − Vin )2
Z
−2t
EVin → R(t) = VR IC (t)dt = (1 − e RC ) (5.3.4)
0 2
and the total energy being either dissipated in the system, or stored into the capacitor EVin → RC (t)
is given by using the P = VI integral as above [57]:
Z t
−t
EVin → RC(t) = Vin IC (t)dt = CVin (V C (0) + Vin )(1 − e RC ) (5.3.5)
0

The energy being stored in the capacitor as a function of time EVin C(t) is given by [57]:

C(V C (0) − Vin )2 −2t

EVin → C(t) = (E Vin → RC)−(E Vin → Z ) = (CVin (VC (0)+Vin )(1−e−t/RC ))− (1−e RC )
2
(5.3.6)
Since the energy stored in the capacitor is the desirable destination of energy introduced to the
system from the voltage source, it is defined as ’useful energy’, usable at a later time. Whereas the
energy dissipated as heat in the capacitor internal and circuit resistance is wasted and therefore is
minimised in the aim for efficiency of charge.
The charge efficiency of the capacitor ηC for a given point in time is given by the ratio of ‘useful
energy’ to ‘wasted energy’ [57]:

−t
EVin → C(t) VC (0) + Vin + (VC (0) − Vin )e RC
ηC = = (5.3.7)
EVin → RC(t) 2Vin
Upon inspection of this equation it is apparent that to increase the efficiency of charge of the
capacitor you can either increase the initial charge voltage when t = 0 or increase the ratio of
VC (0) : Vi n
Efficiency of the charging cycle also increases as VC (t) approaches Vin . This is due to the
proportion of energy stored in the capacitor compared to energy dissipated in the resistor increasing
as time progresses. Being at a maximum at a point in time where VC (t) = Vin ; t = ∞.
To achieve ideal charging efficiency:

VC (0)
→ 1; t → ∞ (5.3.8)
Vin
If at the beginning of charge VC (0) = Vin then the efficiency of the charge cycle will be 100%.
This is because the initial current will be zero, and therefore no energy will be dissipated through the
resistor. This situation, although ideal in efficiency terms, places limitations upon energy storage
ability, as the energy stored in a capacitor between two voltages VC (0) and VC (∞) is given by
Figure 5.3.9, adapted from [37]:

C(V in − VC (0))2
EVin → C = (5.3.9)
2
where VC (∞) = Vin .
This means that if VC (0) = Vin then Vin − VC (0) = 0, so the energy stored in the capacitor is zero,
therefore useless for the intended purpose. It is apparent that a compromise must be met at the
cost of efficiency, so that the required energy storage capabilities can be met. In order to achieve
5.3. SUPERCAPACITORS 49

this, the value of VC (0) must be reduced.

As EVin → C increases then ηC decreases, so an optimised value of efficiency can be found
by finding the maximum value of energy recovered and making VC (0) as large as possible. Equa-
tion 5.3.10 gives VC (0) in relation to Vin , the amount of recoverable kinetic energy Erecov and the
capacitance of the system:
r
2(Erecov )
VC (0) = Vin2 − (5.3.10)
C
For VC (0) to be as close to Vin as possible, an inspection of Equation 5.3.10 (EVin → C) is made
and it can be seen that if (Vin − VC (0)) is to be reduced, but Erecov is to be kept the same, then C
must be increased.
In the name of safety, the maximum rated voltages of the supercapacitor should not be ap-
proached, so an appropriate disparity between the maximum Vin and the maximum rated volt-
age will be imposed. This will lower the possible efficiency maximum but safety is a concern of
paramount importance.
Due to the time related charge form, VC will never actually reach the value of Vin within experi-
mental parameters, and so it will be important to define the value of VC at which the supercapacitor
is ‘full’. Lowering the maximum value of VC will lower the efficiency of capacitor charge, but time
limits are imposed on the charging cycle and so is necessary.
In summary:

• In order for the efficiency of charging the capacitor to be maximised within the experimental
requirements, the value of VC (0) : Vin can be increased by increasing the capacitance, and
therefore the energy capacity.
• The optimum pre-charge of the capacitor is the maximum value where the required energy
capacity is still available for Erecov . The maximum value of Vin will depend upon safety mar-
gins, but will be maximised within that to ensure efficient energy storage.
• The value of VC will be optimised to ensure maximum efficiency, whilst still maintaining an
acceptable charge rate.

5.3.3 Considerations HMF

As stated previously, the efficiency of supercapacitor use can be maximised with a carefully se-
lected capacitance value and pre-charged state. The variation of supercapacitor charging efficien-
cies will now be investigated. Due to motors running at 48 V DC, any supercapacitor choice must
be capable of accepting this voltage.
Three different Maxwell supercapacitor modules were investigated here:

• Three 16 V 58 F modules (BMOD0058 E016 B02) connected in series to achieve 48 V and

19.33 F across the terminals
• A single 48 V 83 F module (BMOD0083 P048 B01)
• A single 48 V 165 F module (BMOD0165 P048 BXX)

Figure 24 shows the theoretical charging efficiencies of the supercapacitors when ‘fully charged’
over a range of Vin values when Vfull is equal to Vin . The supercapacitors are defined as ‘fully
charged’ after five time constants; when t = 5(RC). At this point in time the value of VC will be
within 1% of Vin , and therefore can be treated as full.
50 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

Figure 24: Charge efficiencies of supercapacitors of different capacitance values with variable Vin
values

Upon inspection of Figure 24 it is apparent that increasing the capacitance value of the system
results in increased charge efficiency. The magnitude of this efficiency increase from 19.3 F to 83 F
is large in comparison to the change from 83 F to 165 F. In this particular case, where Vfull = Vin , it
is beneficial not to use the 19.3 F system as the efficiency disparity is large, whereas the benefits
of using the 165 F module over the 83 F module are small enough to warrant further investigation.
It is worth noting that the plots shown in Figure 24 show the efficiency of charge of the individual
capacitors at the point in time where the capacitor is defined as full. These plots display ηC at 5RC,
and are only true for that particular point in time, for that particular Vin value. Due to the fact that the
charge efficiency improves over the duration of a charge cycle, the total energy transfer efficiency
into the capacitor will not be as high as shown, and therefore the efficiencies are overestimated.
That being said, the disparity of charge efficiencies from t = 0 to t = 5RC are 0.06$, 0.15%, and
0.48% for the 48 V 165 F module, 48 V 83 F module and the three 16 V 58 F modules respectively
for Vin = 48 V , and therefore is not considered to be significant.
Below, the effect of varying the ratio of Vfull : Vin upon the charging efficiency is investigated.
This is achieved by setting Vfull at values of Vin − [0.5, 1.0, ..., 2.5, 3.0]V Altering the value where
the supercapacitor is considered full results in a corresponding change in VC (0). This variation of
pre-charged state is was investigated for different values of Vin for each of the three supercapacitor
arrangements investigated; 19.33 F, 83 F, and 165 F, which is shown in Figure 25.
5.4. ENERGY RECOVERY CHALLENGE: INITIAL MODEL 51

Figure 25: Charge efficiency of 48 V 165 F module with variable Vfull and Vin values

Similar graphs were also obtained for the other two modules and analysed.
It is apparent that with an increasing value of Vfull there is a corresponding increase in charging
efficiency. Within the likely operating range of the system the charge efficiency changes in a linear
fashion with both an increase in the value of Vfull and Vin . Importantly the change in charging
efficiency has a fairly uniform increase of around 1.45% when comparing the 165 F module to
the 83 F module with a comparable Vfull and Vin values. This may not appear to be of large
consequence but due to the importance of efficiency of energy recovery even a small increase in
charging efficiency is highly desired.
From this comparison of the three different supercapacitor modules investigated, it is apparent
that the 48 V 165 F module is the optimum choice for efficiency of charge purposes.
Figure 25 illustrates the effect of varying Vfull and Vin upon charging efficiency. It can be seen
that increasing the value of Vfull from 3 V below Vin to Vin yields an efficiency increase of 5.8%
compared to the increase of 16.3% when increasing the value of Vin from 40 V to 48 V. This
highlights the importance of selecting the ‘correct’ Vfull and Vin values when considering the safety
limits of using high values of Vin and when considering the value of Vfull : Vin which dictates the rate
at which the supercapacitor can be charged.
The design of the supercapacitor energy recovery circuit will be covered later in this report in
Section 5.5.

5.4 Energy Recovery Challenge: Initial Model CL

During the energy recovery challenge the locomotive will travel from its maximum speed to a com-
plete stop using regenerative braking. The train will move off from stationary using only the energy
it has recovered. To design the system, an understanding of the dynamic mechanics in the regen-
erative braking process is needed. The locomotive’s velocity, the voltage produced by the motors
during braking and the supercapacitor voltage have been simulated during the energy recovery
challenge. The assumptions used to create this model are displayed in Table 7.
52 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

Assumption Value
Supercapacitor Efficiency 0.9
DC Converter Efficiency 0.85
Transmission Efficiency 0.9
Motor Efficiency 0.9
Overall Efficiency 0.43
Mass of system 1050 kg
Transmission Ratio 4.75
Maximum Acceleration 1.3 ms−2
Maximum System current 400 A
Wheel Diameter 0.25 m
Max Velocity 15 kmh−1

Table 7: Assumptions of the initial model

5.4.1 The Model

Locomotive Acceleration Rates

Figure 26 models the velocity of the train during the energy recovery challenge; the locomotive
starts at 4.16 m/s, decelerates at 1.3 m/s2 until stationary, can be modelled to remain stationary for
0.5 seconds, and then accelerates using the recovered energy.
The locomotive has been modelled to deceleration rate at 1.3 m/s2 , this is the maximum allow-
able deceleration rate set by the IMechE railway challenge authorities. Using the equation F = ma,
and v = u + at, the velocity time graph for the locomotive are plotted (see Figure 26).
The acceleration of the train through discharging the supercapacitor can be calculated using
the minimum of the two term in Equation 5.4.1.
 
µR P
a = min , (5.4.1)
m mV
Where µ is the coefficient of rolling friction, P is the supercapacitor power output, m is the
combined locomotive and trailing mass, R locomotive reaction force and V is locomotive velocity.
The first term calculates the traction available for the wheels on the rail, and second term calculates
the maximum available power output of the supercapacitor. The maximum output of the capacitor
is limited by the overall resistance within the circuits or Equivalent Series Resistance (ESR). It is
initially estimated at 250 mΩ. This limits the maximum electrical power through the system to be in
the region of 8 kW.
Traction is independent of speed, as the rolling friction coefficient ref µ is velocity independent.
This gives the maximum acceleration of the train to be 1.45 m/s2 . Traction dominates behaviour at
low speeds, at higher speeds acceleration is limited by power. Equation 5.4.1 calculates these two
acceleration rates and returns the minimum.
5.4. ENERGY RECOVERY CHALLENGE: INITIAL MODEL 53

Figure 26: Velocity time graph of the locomotive during the energy recovery challenge. Model has
been calculated considering inefficiencies of each component as stated in Table 7
.

Figure 26 shows that the supercapacitor can deliver sufficient power such that the locomotives
acceleration is dominated by friction. This highlights that there is a real possibility of wasting power
through wheel spin, which is an important design consideration for the motor controller.
This model also simulates the current and voltage which the locomotive will produce during
regenerative braking and required during acceleration.

(b) Supercapacitor voltage during the en-

(a) Voltage generated by motors ergy recovery challenge

Figure 27: Results of initial model

The motors accelerate and decelerate the train with a constant torque and therefore constant
current, 105 A and 84 A respectively. The supercapacitor voltage is modelled such that the mod-
ule is pre-charged to 44 V, this is done to increase the efficiency of the system, as explained in
Section 5.3.1. We can see in Figure 27b, the supercapacitor voltage rises from 44.0 V - 45.04 V.
This small increase in voltage is desired so that the supercapacitor’s energy input is always in the
efficient energy storage voltage range.
This model has given us the voltage and current produced by the motors during regenerative
braking. It has also calculated some dynamic mechanics, the acceleration rates, and forces re-
quired by the motors. A more detailed and refined simulation of the system is produced in Simulink,
see Section 5.7. The electronic systems in the locomotive design commences using the parame-
ters generated from this initial model.
54 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

5.5 Electrical Power Distribution CL

5.5.1 Introduction
The electrical power distribution circuit will control the power flow from the generator and superca-
pacitor to the motors. The system incorporates a generator to produce the DC electrical energy, a
supercapacitor and a 4QD motor controller to control the power delivery to the motors. The super-
capacitor will firstly recover energy when braking and be used to deliver an extra burst of power to
the motors. For effective power flow from the generator to the rails an efficient electricity distribution
circuit is required. The electrical power circuit or 48 V circuit is required to be safe, controllable and
most importantly available to deliver power on demand.

5.5.2 Delivering Power

The primary focus of the circuit is to connect the power between the supercapacitor and the genera-
tor to the motors. It needs to take power from the supercapacitor and the generator both individually
and simultaneously and supply the required power to the motor controller.
When the train is either accelerating, travelling up an incline or towing a significant load, the
supercapacitor will be needed to give a boost of power to the motors.

Power Required (kW)

Situation No Trailing Load 600 kg Trailing Load
Cruising at 15 km/h 0.5 1
Accelerating at 1.3 m/s2 2.7 5.0
Climbing up 10% Gradient 2.5 4.7

Table 8: Power required by the train in different operating situations

The generator can provide 3 kW of power, when the train is laden under a 600 kg the superca-
pacitor is needed to maintain a constant speed of 15 km/h while climbing a 5% incline, and when
accelerating. These two situations are displayed in bold font in Table 8.

5.5.3 Energy Recovery

The most important use of the supercapacitor for IMechE Railway Challenge is to store regenerated
energy. When the train comes to a stop the motors act as a generator, producing current at a
voltage proportional to it’s rotational velocity. The 7.8 kJ of generated energy needs to be stored in
the supercapacitor.

5.5.4 Safety Requirements CL

Safety is a primary focus for the IMechE Railway Challenge scrutineers. The primary safety hazards
identified are earthing, fail-safe systems and the supercapacitor.

Earthing

Earthing the system components such as the frame, the supercapacitor case, and the shell stops
the build up of static and to prevent components becoming live in the event of a live wire touching
the frame. These components need to be earthed to zero potential.
One earth point is needed from the 48 V circuit to the frame, following this an earth strap is
needed from the frame to the bogies. If there were several different earth points on the frame,
small currents will flow between the earth points, the frame would act as an antenna and will
5.5. ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION 55

interfere with the electronics of the myRIO and motor controller. Thus it is important to earth all the
components at the same point on the frame, the current is taken to the earth point via an insulated
wire not through the frame.
Initially it was intended to connect the bogies to the axle via graphite brushes. This would
ensure a good connection to the axles. A simple test with a multimeter proved the axle bearings to
be conductive, concluding graphite brushes are not needed and a earth strap from the frame to the
bogies will be sufficient.

Supercapacitor Safety

The supercapacitor has the ability to store large amounts of energy (190 kJ); this energy needs to
be safely monitored and controlled. The mechanisms of safely controlling the capacitor’s charge/dis-
charge cycle will now be discussed.
The supercapacitor cannot be charged over a certain voltage, the myRIO constantly monitors
the supercapacitor voltage and is programmed to stop charging the supercapacitor before the volt-
age is at full capacity, 47 V.
In the case of connecting the generator in reverse polarity, a bypass connector circuit is added
to the circuit. This allows current to bypass the capacitor and blow a fuse, preventing the superca-
pacitor from being damaged, this circuit adaptation can be seen in Figure 28.
The supercapacitor’s maximum capacity is 48 V; however it will not be charged to more than
44 V by the generator to leave some capacity for the recovered energy to be stored. The energy
needed to overcharge the capacitor from 44 V is calculated in Equation 5.5.1.

1 2 1
C[Vfull − V 2 ] = 165[482 − 442 ] = 60.7 kJ (5.5.1)
2 2
To put that into context, the train’s kinetic energy at full speed is 7.8 kJ. This is only 12.8%
of the energy needed to take the supercapacitor into a state of overcharge. The supercapacitor
maybe be overcharged if the train is rolling down a long steady slope. The recovered energy of
the train rolling down a hill of height h is calculated by E = mghη, where ηERS is the efficiency of
the energy recovery system 43%, as calculated from the inefficiencies in Table 7. The maximum
descent which the train can safely regenerate down is calculated in Equation 5.5.2.

E 60700
h= = = 16.0 m (5.5.2)
mgηERS 900 × 9.81 × .43
Equation 5.5.2 does not take into account the friction and air resistance losses which will inher-
ently make the ERS more inefficient. The locomotive will be tested at Eastleigh Lakeside Railway
and Stapleford Miniature Railway in Leicestershire, a decent of this magnitude does not exist at
either of these locations. Therefore, neither does the opportunity to overcharge the supercapacitor
in this manner.

Fail-Safe Design

The train needs so be safe in the event of control loss. This requires control over the supercapacitor
and being able to manually stop the train. In the event of power loss the brakes will automatically
come on. The generator and supercapacitor will still have the ability to supply power. Accordingly,
the system will be fitted with solenoid switches which return the system to a certain state when the
power to the control circuit is lost. This will stop the power to the train and discharge the capacitor.
56 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

There is also a manual switch to serve the same purpose, which the operator will have access to.
The supercapacitor is fitted with a discharge circuit, as seen in Figure 28. This is simply a
large resistor that is capable of dissipating the potential energy safely as heat. When power is
lost to the switches, the dissipation resistors are automatically connected and the supercapacitor
is discharged. This will leave the circuit dead and safe to work on.
The dissipation resistors themselves are a safety hazard, they heat up to high temperature
when the supercapacitor is discharging. Although the resistors dissipate heat quickly, they will rise
to a considerable temperature. As explained in Section 5.6.4, the resistors require air flow over
them and to be positioned so that operators cannot touch them.

5.5.5 Charging the Supercapacitor

The electrical power distribution circuit must be able to charge the capacitor safely. Although there
is no theoretical current limit tp charging a supercapacitor, the 48 V DC switched-mode power
(SMPS) supply has a current limit of 62.5 A. When the supercapacitor is empty or at zero state Of
charge (SOC), the module has a resistance of 6.3 mΩ [60], which is its equivalent series resistance
(ESR). The charge current which would travel through the fully discharged supercapacitor if it was
connected to the SMPS supplying 48 V is calculated in Equation 5.5.3.

V 48
I= = = 7620 A (5.5.3)
R 0.0063
A charge current of 7620 A would cause severe sparking and damage to the generator. Two
options are considered to reduce the charge current to below 62.5 A: variable voltage charging and
soft charging.
The current of 7620 A, is known as the short circuit current; this is assuming no circuit resis-
tance. In reality there will be a significant amount of circuit resistance, and as the supercapacitor
charge increases the voltage drop between the generator and capacitor reduces. These two factors
lower the current flow through the capacitor.

Variable Voltage Charging

The variable voltage charging method involves increasing the supply voltage to the supercapacitor
as it charges. If the voltage drop between the SMPS and supercapacitor is below a calculated
value, the current flowing will be within the generator’s rated voltage. This voltage drop is calculated
in Equation 5.5.4.

V = IR = Vsupply − Vcapacitor = 62.5 × 0.0063 = 0.39 V (5.5.4)

If the voltage difference between the two components is less than 0.39 V, the SMPS will be op-
erating within it’s rated current. Note this calculation neglects the ESR of other circuit components,
giving an underestimate for the maximum voltage drop.
This setup is very efficient as almost all of the energy supplied is stored in the capacitor. The
concern for this method of charging is that there is little margin for error. The supply voltage needs
to be carefully monitored as the supercapacitor voltage increases. If the voltage drop closes to less
than 0.39 V the charge time will be increased. If the voltage drop exceeds 0.39 V, the SMPS will
experience a current above what it is rated for. This is damaging to the SMPS and dangerous for
users [60].
5.5. ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION 57

Constant Power Charging

The alternative option to charge the supercapacitor is to set the SMPS to full power, and use a
resistor to limit the current around the circuit. The resistor is put in series between the SMPS
and the capacitor to limit the current. Again using Ohm’s law it can be found that the minimum
resistance required to limit the 48 V SMPS’s current to 62.5 A, is 0.77 Ω.
A 1 Ω resistor can be used to limit the current to 48 A when the generator is at maximum power.
This is a safe option as there is no possibility of a charge current above 62.5 A.
There are a few issues using this method of charging; firstly the capacitor takes longer to charge,
and secondly it is a much less efficient way of charging the capacitor.
As the current is limited from 62.5 A to 48 A, it takes longer for the capacitor to charge. In
addition, when the capacitor is nearly full, such as 40 V while being charged with a 48 V supply
voltage, there is only an 8 V drop between the two components. This limits the current to just 8 A.
In this instance the generator is only delivering 64 W of power, utilising very little of the SMPS’s
potential 3 kW of power.
Additionally a large amount of energy is wasted as heat, as P = I 2 R where R = 1 Ω and initially
I = 48 A. At the start of the charging process 2.3 kW of heat energy is dissipated. This is reduced
as the capacitor’s voltage increases.
Although this method of charging is slower than variable voltage charging, it charges the capac-
itor in an acceptable length of time. The charge time is equal to 5 time constants:

5RC = 5 × 1 × 165 = 825seconds (5.5.5)

This gives a charge time of 13 mins 45 secs.

As the constant power charging method is a safer and simpler method of charging the superca-
pacitor, it is the selected method to be used in the circuit design.

5.5.6 Circuit Design CL

With the design and safety criteria specified, the following circuit diagram has been created. The
simple design allows power to be taken from either the supercapacitor or generator and control the
power flow between each component safely.

                   Overcharge   Soft  Charge  Resistor  1  ohm

                     (SW80b-­‐5)

Soft  Charge  (SW80b-­‐5)

250  A  
M
Lynich  Motor  1
Manual  Discharge W
 Switch

 Automated  Discharge 48  V  Rectifier  

M  (SW85b-­‐35)
Energy  Dissipation
Lynich  Motor  2 Motor  Controller V Supercapacitor  Resistor  2.2    Ohm  

Figure 28: Circuit diagram of the main power system within the train

The circuit displayed in Figure 28 is designed such that power can be drawn from the superca-
58 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

pacitor and the generator without any changes in the control circuit. The start up and shut down
procedures and the four different operating scenarios of the locomotive will now be discussed,
stationary, regenerating braking, fast acceleration and cruising.

5.5.7 Locomotive Operation

The operating states, start up and shut down procedures are now explained. Refer to Figure 28 for
component names.

1. Start up: The supercapacitor has no charge stored. The supercapacitor will need to be
charged through the soft charging resistor. It is recommended to charge the capacitor to 90%
of its capacity, 44 V. This is achieved by setting the DC SMPS to 44 V.
2. Capacitor Charged: When the supercapacitor is charged to 42.5 V, within 1.5 V of the supply
voltage, disconnect the soft charge switch. The soft charge resistor can be by-passed to
reduce charging time.
3. Operational: The train can stay in this state and run at any speed controlled by the motor
controller. The four operating states will now be explained.

(a) Stationary: The motor controller does not draw any power from either the generator or
the supercapacitor.
(b) Cruising: The train is drawing less than 3 kW of power. The generator is producing a
sustainable amount of power. The supercapacitor charge state will stay constant.
(c) Accelerating or Climbing: The locomotive is consuming >3 kW of power. The gener-
ator cannot supply more than 62.5 A, the generator voltage will start to dip below 44 V,
the supercapacitor charged at 44 V will supply the extra required current to the mo-
tor controller. When the climb is finished, the supercapacitor will be charged with less
than 44 V. The generator will be recharging the supercapacitor back up to 44 V while
simultaneously powering the train.
(d) Regenerating: The locomotive is decelerating and the motor controller is not drawing
any current. The motors are producing a current back through the circuit in the oppo-
site direction. This current is directed through the motor controller into the top of the
capacitor. The current cannot go into the generator as it is protected by the diodes.
The supercapacitor stores this charge, making the charge state of the supercapacitor
approximately 45 V. When the locomotive starts moving forward again it draws current
from the place of the highest voltage, i.e the supercapacitor. The locomotive will run off
regenerated energy until the capacitors charge state drops to 44 V when it will naturally
switch to using the generator’s power.
4. Shut Down: Disconnect the overcharge switch, to disconnect the supercapacitor from the
power circuit. Connect the discharge resistor to the supercapacitor, automated discharge
switch, the current will flow through the resistor and dissipate the energy away as heat.
5. Emergency Stop: Push the emergency stop switch, not displayed in Figure 28, as it is built
into the 12 V control circuit. This switch is mounted on the outside of the train. When pressed,
power to the motors is stopped, the supercapacitor discharges, and the brakes are activated.
5.6. COMPONENT SELECTION 59

5.6 Component Selection CL

5.6.1 Switches
Switches control the operating states and start up and shut down procedures of the locomotive.
The switches need to compatible with the myRIO, which can send a logic output signal from 0 V to
5 V. This signal is used to control the switches. The function and rating of each of the switches are
described in Table 9.

Switch Rated Current (A) at 48 V Function State in

absence
of power
Overcharge 62.5 Off: Disconnect power circuit Off
On: Power circuit provides power to
controller and supercapacitor
Automated 22 Off: Supercapacitor holds charge Off
& On: Supercapacitor’s energy is
manual dissipated through 2.2 Ω resistor
discharge
switches
Soft charge 62.5 Off: To charge supercapacitor Off
switch through the 1 Ω resistor
On: Power circuit delivers power
to supercapacitor and motor con-
troller

Table 9: Switch ratings and functions

Of the switch manufacturers considered, the Albright SW80 series switches have been selected
in preference to the Amtech Ltd switches. The Albright SW80 switches are better suited to this
purpose as they are simple and readily available. They can be powered by the 12 V batteries and
controlled by the myRIO.

5.6.2 Diode Selection

Diodes are incorporated in the circuit to prevent undesired current direction. This is required to
protect expensive components which could otherwise be damaged, such as the generator or su-
percapacitor. Which could occur when supercapacitor voltage exceeds that of the generator, fol-
lowing energy recovery. Secondly, the diodes prevent the supercapacitor being charged in reverse
polarity, as explained in Section 5.5.4. Diode implementation can be seen in Figure 28.
The diodes need to be rated to 200 A and have a low ESR. This reduces the amount of heat
dissipated through them. MagnaChip 400V FRD Module diodes are selected for this purpose over
the VISHAY Schottky Rectifier, 200 A. Although they have similar performance characteristics the
MagnaChip Diodes had the benefit of a shorter lead time.

5.6.3 Design Summary CL

Each component in the electrical power distribution circuit has been carefully considered to be safe,
simple and efficient. This ethos has built a safe, simple and efficient energy recovery system. The
only operator input required to move the locomotive from a stationary position, through acceleration,
to cruising and then to braking regeneratively, is the speed control on the motor controller. The
locomotive will naturally store and then use regenerated energy, allowing the generator to run at a
constant moderate rate. This makes the whole system very simple and efficient.
60 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

5.6.4 Resistor Calculations and Selection CL PN

TE Connectivity, TE Series 2500 W Panel Mount Resistors were selected to charge and discharge
the capacitor for their ability to dissipate heat and handle the electrical power required. A 1 Ω
TE Connectivity resistor is used to limit the charge current of the supercapacitor, as justified in
Section 5.5.5. A 2.2 Ω TE Connectivity resistor has been selected to discharge the capacitor.
Although the capacitor would discharge quicker through a lower resistance, the heat output is
lower through a 2.2 Ω resistor. This allows it to be mounted in more locations on the locomotive.
It was important to determine the temperature of the resistors and ensure that the heat transferred
into the surroundings would not cause problems for other devices.
For example, it was decided that the resistors should be placed on the same shelf as the gen-
erator. The supercapacitor has an operating temperature range maximum of 60◦ C and so the
resistors cannot heat the supercapacitor beyond this point. The first step was to evaluate the en-
ergy supplied to the resistor. Using the equation for current decay: I = I0 e−t/RC , the discharge
current and voltage of the supercapacitor were plotted against time. Following this, the respective
power decay could be found using P = VI [37].
The maximum power delivered to the 2.2 Ω resistor is 1047 W at the beginning of the discharge.
This is well within the rated 2500 W of the resistor and so the device will not exceed its operating
temperature. The average power dissipated through the resistor in the first minute of discharge
is calculated to be 892 W. The total energy transferred in this time is 53.5 kJ. To estimate the
maximum temperature that the resistor would reach, the first law of thermodynamics was applied.
This energy was equated to the heat equation (Q):

Q = mc∆T . (5.6.1)

The resistor material is taken to be a ceramic and the specific heat capacity, c, is estimated to
be in the lower region of ceramics (approximately 0.7 kJ/kgK) [61]. The mass of the resistor is
represented by m and taken to be 1 kg, then the change in temperature is ∆T. It was assumed that
the starting temperature was an ambient 298 K (25◦ C) and so the final temperature of the resistor
was calculated to be 374 K (101◦ C).
The electronic power supplied by the supercapacitor is to be dissipated by the resistor as heat.
It is assumed that the resistor is heated uniformly and the air temperature at the surface of the
resistor is taken to be equal to that of the resistor. Newton’s law of cooling is given as [47]:

Q̇ = As h∆T . (5.6.2)

Where As is the surface area of the resistor, h is the convective heat transfer coefficient and ∆T
is the change in temperature between the air at the surface and the surrounding air (Ts -T∞ ). It
is reasonable in assuming the resistor to be a perfect a cylinder. From this, the heat transfer
coefficient can be estimated from determining the Nusselt number, Nu. The Nusselt number is
dependent on the orientation of the resistor and for this project will be mounted horizontally [47]:

( 1/6
)2
0.387RaD
Nu = 0.6 + . (5.6.3)
[1 + (0.559/Pr )9/16 ]8/27
5.6. COMPONENT SELECTION 61

The above equation expresses Nu for a horizontal cylinder, where Ra is the Rayleigh number
and Pr is the Prandtl number. The Rayleigh and Prandtl numbers are calculated to be 0.36 and
1.3×10−5 respectively. The Nusselt number for this scenario is therefore estimated to be 0.43.
The relationship between the Nusselt number and the convective heat transfer coefficient is given
as [47]:
hLc
Nu = . (5.6.4)
k
Lc is the characteristic length which in this case is the diameter of a horizontal cylinder and k is
the thermal conductivity of the air (taken to be 1.4) [37]. Substituting Equation 5.6.4 into Equation
5.6.2, Newton’s law of cooling becomes:

kAs Nu
Q̇ = (Ts − T∞ ). (5.6.5)
Lc

The surrounding air temperature, T∞ , is assumed to be the ambient temperature of 298 K. Ts is the
surface temperature calculated from equation 5.6.1 as 374 K. The cooling power of the surrounding
air is determined to be 86.6 W, which is multiplied by the sample discharge time of 60 s to ascertain
the energy transferred into the surrounding airflow (5.2 kJ). Using equation 5.6.1, but accounting
for the energy lost through cooling, the new maximum temperature of the resistor is found to be
approximately 94.0◦ C.
This temperature is acceptable and will not interfere with surrounding systems. It should be
noted that these previous calculations only represent natural convection. Vents will be cut into the
shell to allow a mass transport of air through the locomotive incurring further forced convection
during travel and the cooling fins on the actual resistor will increase the surface area. Allowing the
supercapacitor to discharge through a resistor and a fan in future would also help to create a forced
convection.

5.6.5 Connections HMF

There exist major safety concerns related to accidents involving exposed supercapacitor terminals.
Amongst these is the chance that a conducting material (i.e. spanner or wrench) will come into
contact with both exposed terminals simultaneously, resulting in rapid resistive heating due to high
short circuit currents, presenting a burn risk to users. The largest inherent danger is electric shocks
received due terminal contact, resulting in burns, damaging unrestricted muscular contractions or
even cardiac arrest [62].
In order to minimise the likelihood of either of these events occurring, it is critical to limit acci-
dental access to the exposed terminals, achieved by design and manufacture of 3D printed terminal
covers (caps). The component requirements and features implemented to meet the criteria listed
above are given below:

• Unless specifically intended, access to exposed terminals/cabling should be impossible.

– The cap protecting the terminal from accidental contact is securely fastened onto the
supercapacitor by a bolt tightened beyond finger tightness, therefore requiring tools to
gain access. The intention is to reduce impulse, ill-informed access.
• Accidental contact with exposed connections/cabling must be made to be as difficult as pos-
sible.

– When in place on supercapacitor, the only access to the terminal is the cable inlet/outlet.
62 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

– Opening dimensions are constrained to reduce clearances on either side of the cabling
as much as possible, see Figure 29a.
– Standardisation of the cable approach angle to the terminal allowed cabling clearances
to be further reduced from initial designs.
• Cap structural integrity should not be compromised by realistic eventualities such as the im-
pact of a falling tool.

– Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) over the alternative Polylactic Acid (PLA) due to
its higher impact resistance: 3.04 J/cm compared to 0.961 J/cm [63]
– Stress raising features of the design are limited as much as possible, with wall thickness
maximised (minimum 4mm), and sharp corners avoided. Also, a high fill density was
implemented, the physical difference of which can be seen in Figure 29b, to reduce
internal stresses and to increase the strength of the cover.
• Cap material must be non conductive, and also resistant to expected ambient temperatures.

– ABS is non-conductive, with a glass transition temperature of 104◦ C [64].

Shown below in Figure 29a is the final design of the supercapacitor protective cap, and in
Figure 29c the caps can be seen on the terminals.

(b) Density difference

between second
(a) Solidworks design of 3D printed superca- highest and second
pacitor terminal cover lowest density setting

(c) Supercapacitor with protective terminal cover in place

Figure 29: Supercapacitor protective cap

5.7. SIMULATION 63

5.7 Simulation PN

5.7.1 Aim
Simulink R2014a is a programming language developed by MathWorks which is used for simulating
models of dynamic systems through the use of block diagrams [65]. The primary aim for using this
modelling software was to ensure that the proposed electrical circuit designs would be consistent
in operation. Before the construction of the locomotive was fully completed, this model showed
what can be expected to occur during operation.
Once construction is complete, the secondary aim is to compare the true locomotive operation
against that of the simulation. The simulation is hoped to provide near identical results to the final
tested operation with a view to altering the Simulink circuit prior to any physical design changes.
It is hoped that the process detailed here will provide a platform for future additions. An accurate
model can provide a cheap solution for preliminary testing of any future ventures. Over the following
Section 5.7 the energy recovery simulation design procedure and results will be presented.

5.7.2 Simulink Circuit Methodology

The chosen library for circuit construction was SimPowerSystems within Simscape as it contained
specialised technologies such as the required supercapacitor. Before constructing the entire re-
covery circuit, individual simplified circuits were created. These included normal acceleration with
use of the generator, charging of the supercapacitor and discharging of the supercapacitor. Once
direct drive models had been shown to work, they were combined into a single circuit. A simple
motor controller could then be integrated for a more comprehensive representation.

DC Motors

DC machines specified with permanent magnets were chosen to represent the proposed Lynch
motors. Preliminary calculations were to assess the forces and torque loads that the motors would
have to overcome. The total force required to accelerate the train is a function of the train mass, m,
and the desired acceleration, a: F = ma. The total torque, T, required to move the train was then
found by multiplying the above result by the radius, r, of the wheels: T = Fr . The constituent parts
of the torque equation were then displayed with respect to the change in angular velocity, ω:

dv dω
T = mr = mr 2 . (5.7.1)
dt dt

Finally, the gearing ratio between motors and axle was taken into account and the coefficient of
angular acceleration equated to the moment of inertia, J:

1 dω dω
T = mr 2 =J . (5.7.2)
G dt dt

The above set of Equations 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 detail the method for identifying the moment of inertia,
mr 2
G , required to overcome to move the mass of the train. However, other rotating components such
as the axles, gears and wheels also have moments of inertia that need to be overcome. Where not
provided by data sheets these inertias, J, are approximated by taking each component to be a solid
cylinder and using J = 0.5mr 2 where m is the mass of the object and r represents the radius. The
individual values were calculated and combined to form a single inertia as seen in Table 10. This
value was then increased to 5 kg/m2 to allow for trailer wheels and axles, then halved and input as
64 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

a component parameter for each of the two DC machines.

Component Quantity Inertia (kg/m2 )

Train 1 3.3
Axles 4 0.7
Wheels 8 0.5
Large Gears (V) 4 6.1×10−2
Small Gears 4 1.0×10−4
Motor Windings 2 4.0×10−2
Estimated System Total 4.6

Table 10: Calculated estimates of system component inertia values

It was largely assumed that the locomotive would be travelling on a horizontal surface, however
additional torque loads could be applied for when the locomotive would be faced with a gradient.
The additional force term is determined through: F = mgsinθ, where the mass of the train is given
by m, the acceleration due to gravity is g, and angle of incline given by θ [37]. Multiplying this force
by the wheel radius, the additional torque load can then be found as the result of the train situated
on an incline. For a 5% gradient, the corresponding torque load is found to be in the region of
32.1 Nm per motor. This can be applied as an input to simulate the train ascending up an incline.
The armature resistance and inductance were taken from the motor specifications and the vis-
cous friction coefficient was taken to be zero because no substantially lubricated bearings are in
use. The Coulomb friction torque within the motor was estimated by multiplying the no-load current
(7 A) by the motor constant (0.113 Nm/A). The rolling resistance was calculated by taking a product
of the rolling resistance coefficient of 0.04, determined in Section 4.3.3, and the weight of the train
(mg). This was then multiplied by the wheel radius to give a rolling resistive torque of 5.15 Nm.
After combining this value to that of the motor, the result was then approximately extrapolated to
account for the entire drivetrain and the Coulomb friction torque estimated at 10 Nm. It is hoped that
in operation all mechanical connections will rotate and mesh freely. Finally, to simulate a stationary
start, the initial speed current were set to zero.

Parameter Value
Armature Resistance (mΩ) 24
Inductance (µH) 23
Motor Constant (Nm/A) 0.113
Total Inertia (kgm2 ) 2.5
Viscous Friction Coefficient (Nms) 0
Coulomb Friction Torque (Nm) 10
Initial Speed (rad/s) 0
Initial Field Current (A) 0

Table 11: Lynch motor parameter inputs for Simscape simulation

Supercapacitor

A supercapacitor module is constructed from an arrangement of cells; their orientation was de-
termined from knowing the individual properties of each cell. For the Maxwell supercapacitor, the
additional Stern-Tafel parameters were left predetermined. The primary parameters required for
the supercapacitor fields can be found in Appendix D, however, the key values are summarised in
the following Table 12.
5.7. SIMULATION 65

Parameter Value
Rated Capacitance (F) 165
Equivalent Series Resistance (Ω) 6.3×10−3
Rated Voltage (V) 48
Surge Voltage (V) 51
Number of Cells in Parallel 1
Number of Cells in Series 18
Leakage Current (A) 5.2×10−3
Initial Voltage (V) 7
Operating Temperature (Celcius) 30

Table 12: Supercapacitor parameters input for Simscape simulation

The initial voltage at the start of use will be 0 V and the supercapacitor will have to be soft
charged by the generator before use. The supercapacitor voltage will be set by the operator prior
to the energy recovery task. For the simulation, it is important that the voltage is set below what the
motors are capable of charging. Through numerous Simulink trials it was found that the maximum
initial voltage of the supercapacitor could be 40 V and above this value the motors would immedi-
ately draw from the supercapacitor rather than charge. It is hoped that in true operation the motor
controller should compensate for this and charging at a high starting voltage should be possible.

Motor Controller

The motor controller was represented by means of a simple four quadrant H-bridge with the diode
and switch arrangement governed by a feedback loop. When applying the control feedback, the
desired rotational velocity of the motor shafts was compared to a reference velocity. This angular
velocity reference was taken to be the product of the maximum speed of the locomotive (4.17 m/s)
the gearing ratio and inverse wheel diameter. The comparison of the recorded signal and reference
signal created a velocity error signal. Further feedback in the form of current was also used to
provide the necessary damping. Current is the derivative of the acceleration as determined in the
following equation: T = KM I = J dω
dt , where KM is defined as the motor constant. Therefore, the gain
J
of the angular velocity signal is found to be equivalent to KM = 45. The current signal is integrated
and the combined error signal then passed through a further gain and limiter before entering a
pulse-width modulated (PWM) generator with a four pulse output. The switching frequency of the
PWM generator was made to match the motor controller’s 20 kHz [66]. This final signal is then
supplied to the universal H-bridge. The approximately optimal gain of the signal was established
through multiple tests and 10 gave the system a reasonable response. High gains would cause
the velocity to overshoot and hence the locomotive would be breaking the speed limit set by the
challenge requirements.

5.7.3 Simulink Circuit Operation and Results

To enable a fast solution, the ode23tb stiff solver was used with a relative tolerance of 1×10−4 . The
algorithm was also set to Adaptive to limit the errors caused by zero-crossing. Simulink scopes
were connected to the measurement outputs as a way of viewing their changes in the simulation
and displaying the results in graphical form. This is useful, for example: when monitoring the
deceleration to ensure it does not exceed regulations (1.3 m/s2 ) and enabling the user to track the
values, noting any unexpected changes. For the final simulations, aerodynamic drag was deemed
negligible and ignored.
66 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

Regenerative Braking

For the first 60 seconds of this simulation the motors draw current from the 48 V generator. After
this point the generator is disconnected and the supercapacitor is connected by the use of ideal
switches. There must be a small time lapse between the generator disconnecting and the super-
capacitor connecting to the motors to prevent the generator charging the supercapacitor. A "free-
wheeling" diode was added to the circuit to allow current flow during this time and prevent voltage
spikes when the generator is disconnected from the circuit. For the best results the supercapacitor
voltage is initially set at 7 V. The supercapacitor module then draws a current from the motors and
is allowed to charge. Once at a full state of charge, a voltage monitoring block signals a switch and
the supercapacitor is disconnected. Another block then simultaneously activates the brakes. The
braking aspect of the simulation consists of a torque value (calculated to be 85.3 Nm) multiplied by
a sine function of the velocity output. The end result is that the braking torque will resist movement
in whichever direction the locomotive is travelling. To represent approaching an incline, another
relay block is connected to the distance output. The incline force can be set to occur at a certain
distance from the starting location. The circuit is displayed in Figure 30. A rudimentary method of
controlling current involves the use of variable resistance. Introducing a resistor of 0.06 Ω into the
recovery circuit (see Figure 30) was found to reduce the current range to a more amicable level.
Several hundred amps can be experienced by the controller for a brief period of time as mentioned
in Section 4.8. However, the lower the starting voltage of the supercapacitor, the higher the current
drawn as a result of the back emf of the motors. A large current is initially drawn to create a large
torque to overcome the system inertia, but a smaller amount is expected once the vehicle grains
momentum. This lower current is what is required to overcome the Coulomb friction present in the
drivetrain. The supercapacitor current decreases sharply once the module is connected into the
circuit and quickly returns to zero again. At this point the voltage has been capped as the module
is disconnected from the circuit.

Figure 31: The change in voltage of the supercapacitor with respect to the time taken to regenerate

In Figure 31 the supercapacitor voltage increases as the motors charge the module. After pre-
liminary simulations it was found that the voltage would increase to a certain point and then begin
to decrease as the current flow reverses. To prevent the supercapacitor discharging during braking
a relay and switch are used to disconnect the supercapacitor once it has reached its maximum
state of charge. This state of charge is dependent on the initial voltage set in the parameters. In
reality the motor controller requires a power source for operation and so the supercapacitor will not
be disconnected but the setting changed to allow for “free-wheeling”.
5.7. SIMULATION 67

Figure 30: Circuit diagram detailing the arrangement of components used to simulate the locomo-
tive energy recovery system
68 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

Figure 32: Motor current during acceleration and regenerative braking

Figure 32 shows current into the motors to match that of the generator initially and reduce to a
low value as the inertia of the train results in a lower operating current. The current is also seen
to decrease sharply as the supercapacitor is connected. These responses are expected and show
the circuit is working correctly. Finally, Figure 33 shows the velocity of the train. As can be seen,
the velocity increases as the generator supplies the motors and then starts to decrease as a torque
is applied from current supplying the supercapacitor. The train then undergoes braking until at rest.
The sudden secondary increase in velocity once the train stops should not occur and must be the
result of a discontinuity. However, it is ignored as it does not affect the resulting energy stored in
the supercapacitor.

Figure 33: The velocity of the train during acceleration and regenerative braking

Use of Recovered Energy

This simulation takes the final parameters of the last circuit as initial values. The supercapacitor
voltage is set to the peak value attained in the previous simulation (14.74 V) and a relay block is
connected through a switch. The threshold is set so that the supercapacitor is disconnected once it
reaches the initial charge state of the previous simulation (7 V), meaning the energy utilised by the
motors is only that which was recovered from earlier braking. The free wheeling diode is still present
to allow current flow when the supply is disconnected. As seen from Figure 35, the voltage of the
supercapacitor does not stay constant after disconnection from the circuit. The same behaviour
can be seen to occur during charging (see Figure 31) and it is assumed that this is a result of
internal resistance, RInternal , within the supercapacitor. A realistic representation of the voltage, V,
across the supercapacitor can be given by the equation: V = Vcapacitor + IRInternal . As the current, I,
rapidly approaches zero after disconnection, the measured voltage will either increase or decrease
slightly. As mentioned previously, a discontinuity in the simulation is encountered when the train
velocity reached zero. After coming to a stop the velocity sharply increases and then decreases
and this peak can be seen in Figure 33. This anomaly was difficult to remove in both circuits but
5.7. SIMULATION 69

after implementation of the basic motor control feedback in Figure 34 the system stabilised. The
circuit shown in Figure 34 is the final stage of the energy recovery system simulation including the
Lynch motors, Maxwell supercapacitor and an approximation of the 4QD motor controller. When
the voltage difference between the previously charged state and cut-off is too low the simulation
will not run. The voltage and current decrease too quickly for the solver to cope. It was found that
a difference of over 4 V was required for the simulation to run. Moreover, where the current had
been high when charging a low voltage supercapacitor, the opposite is true for the discharge. For
simulation purposes the optimum initial voltage previously was found to be 7 V.

Figure 35: The change in voltage of the supercapacitor with respect to the time taken to regenerate

The presence of the earlier resistor has been necessary in order to reduce the current in the
system as attempting alternative motor control encountered simulation errors. However, the voltage
drop across such an element will reduce the power available to the motors. Therefore, the distance
the train will travel under recovered energy should represent a minimum value. It is recommended
that for future simulations an alternative method is found to limit the current of the system using
the motor controller. Figure 36 is the graph displaying the velocity for the locomotive when using
the recovered energy and it also is within competition limits. It is hoped that in actual operation the
train velocity will reach a greater value.

Figure 36: The velocity of the train under energy gained from regenerative braking

The train velocity output data is then integrated and from this method it can be estimated that the
train will travel approximately 3.3 m under only the energy recovered during regenerative braking
and then allowing the locomotive to “free-wheel” (see Figure 37).
70 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

Figure 34: Circuit diagram detailing the arrangement of components used to simulate the locomo-
tive energy recovery system
5.8. ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEM TESTING 71

Figure 37: The distance covered by the train using previously recovered energy

5.7.4 Conclusion and Future Progress

In conclusion, the KERS utilising the Maxwell Supercapacitor Module will recover energy during
braking and be able to supply it back to the motors for forward velocity. Although the projected
distance involves energy loss through a resistor it is reasonable to conclude that such a system will
be possible and the true distance covered by the train will likely be greater than 3.3 m. Care should
be taken when using the switches and a “free-wheeling” diode is essential to avoid any potential
voltage spikes produced by the current sources.
For future progress it is recommended that a suitably improved working design for the motor
controller is found and implemented for limiting current. At present the supercapacitor module can
be changed and other energy recovery devices built and tested in its place. The results of exten-
sive testing should allow for additions and alterations to be made to the circuit to improve accuracy
(improving the Coulomb friction for example). Although monitored, the acceleration of the simula-
tion is not controlled at present. An additional acceleration curve or ramp should replace any step
function replacing the reference velocity in the feedback loop. It is expected that these changes
will require further knowledge of Simulink and time to integrate. The simulation will undergo contin-
ued improvement throughout the building and testing process and compared with the final product
before the IMechE challenge this June.

5.8 Energy Recovery System Testing CL

5.8.1 Miniature Scale System Test

The circuit design was initially tested using smaller scale electronic components. The 48 V circuit
design, as seen in Figure 28, was created on a breadboard using scaled down components. The
48 V Maxwell supercapacitor has been modelled by a 16 V, 48 mF capacitor; the motors are
replaced with a red LED light behind a 1 kΩ resistor; the desktop power supply simulates the
generator; and the system is simply controlled by toggle switches and monitored with a multimeter.
The model using smaller components proved to be a successful exercise and the circuit worked
as expected. The capacitors stored and delivered power, the diodes protected the generator and
capacitor as expected, and the charge and discharge resistors controlled the capacitors charge
and discharge safely.
This simple miniature scale test gave confidence to the energy recovery system. It also in-
creased the team’s understanding of the system, lowering the possibility of damaging expensive
parts with a design fault or a manufacturing error. The design was then tested with full scale
components.
72 CHAPTER 5. ENERGY RECOVERY

5.8.2 Bench Test

Low Voltage Test 0-5 Volts

The first energy recovery test with the real components was conducted on the bench top between
0 and 5 Volts. The aim of this test was to prove that the components of the circuit were adequate
for use.
To represent the capacitor discharging circuit on the bench top Figure 38 was created. The
components were set up as displayed in Figure 38. Multimeters and clamp meters were used to
measure the voltage across components and the charge and discharge current of the supercapac-
itor.

W
SW80b-5 (Normally Off) Manual Discharge Switch

Soft Charge Automated Discharge (SW85b-35)

Resistor 2 ohm

Energy Dissipation
Resistor 2.2 Ohm
Desk Power Supply V Supercapacitor

Earth Plug (Desk Plug)

Figure 38: Circuit diagram of the energy recovery bench top test

The supercapacitor was charged to 5 V through the soft charge resistor. The charge was held in
the capacitor, checking if the voltage across the supercapacitor did not drop at a rates greater than
1.1 mV per minute. This tested that the supercapacitor could hold charge and the diodes operated
correctly. The energy in the supercapacitor was then dissipated through the 2.2 Ω resistor.
This test proved that all system components were operational and that the system was ready to
test at the full operating voltage of 40 V.

Operational Voltage Test

The only circuit modification from the previous test was that the desktop power supply was ex-
changed for the 3 kW DC SMPS. The system is again described by Figure 38.
In addition to the components seen in Figure 38, a thermocouple was used to monitor the resis-
tor temperature, the clamp meter to measure the charge and discharge current, and a multimeter
to monitor the supercapacitor voltage.
The system was set up to charge the supercapacitor through the soft charging resistor. The su-
5.8. ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEM TESTING 73

percapacitor voltage, charge current and charge resistor temperature were measured. The results
of this test are displayed in Figures 39a and 39b.

(a) Current and voltage plots vs time of the charging (b) Current and voltage plots vs time of the dis-
supercapacitors charging supercapacitor

Figure 39: Supercapacitor charge and discharge rates

Figure 39 shows the time scale in which the supercapacitor is charged and discharged. These
results are very similar to the the Maxwell discharge chart profile. The charge time was as pre-
dicted, proving that the current and voltage of the module is predictable.
The temperature of the soft charge resistor (1 Ω) was also monitored during this test. The maxi-
mum temperature of the soft charge resistor was 84 ◦ C. This backs up the predicted calculations in
Section 5.6.4 and gives reason to be aware that the resistors are a hazard when the supercapacitor
is charging.
This was a successful test, the system will be installed on the locomotive without any significant
changes.
6. Brakes
6.1 Introduction DW
Any mechanical system which requires a change in kinetic energy needs both a way to add energy
and a method of absorbing the kinetic energy to slow the system. This energy is typically converted
into either thermal energy through friction, or by using the interaction of a magnetic field.
Modern train brakes are controlled by both the driver and fail-safe control systems within the
train. Following the development of technologies to recapture and store kinetic energy during
braking there will be a decrease in reliance of conventional breaking designs.
The current trend of reduction in locomotive mass has seen examples such as the Intercity
Express Programme weighing between 200 and 500 tonnes [67]. The reduced mass of trains
could revolutionise energy use in the rail industry and reduce wear and tear on braking systems.
However, trains are still required to be slowed and stopped under all conditions, giving rise to the
requirement of a brakes subteam as part of this project.

6.2 IMechE Specification for Brakes DW

The competition technical specification makes a number of stipulations for the design of the braking
systems of the locomotive, related to both the structure and function of the systems [15].

6.2.1 Systems Structure

The specifications require two separate braking systems:

• A service brake, to be used during normal operation

• An emergency brake,“which shall operate indefinitely even in the event no power is available”.

6.2.2 System Performance

The specification also contained a number of design parameters for the function and performance
of the braking system [15]:

• All brake systems will be limited to a maximum deceleration rate of 1.3 m/s2 (+-0.15 m/s2 ) on
level track (assuming no trailing load)
• The emergency brake shall provide a deceleration rate of 1.3 m/s2 (+-0.15 m/s2 ) on level track
(assuming no trailing load)
• The emergency brake will operate whenever communication with the remote control unit is
lost, regardless of current locomotive operating state, within 0.5 seconds of disconnection
• The emergency brake will operate in the event that service brakes are released but the pres-
ence of an operator in contact with the remote control unit is not detected for a period longer
than 0.5 seconds
• The remote control unit will incorporate an emergency stop button which shall operate the
emergency brake, regardless of current locomotive operating state, within 0.25 seconds
• An emergency brake button, clearly marked and easily accessible, shall be provided on both
sides of the locomotive which shall operate the emergency brake, regardless of current loco-
motive operating state, within 0.25 seconds

74
6.3. BRAKING FORCE - INITIAL CALCULATIONS 75

• The emergency brake system shall feature a manual brake release to enable movement of
the locomotive by external means when it is safe to do so. Manual reapplication of the brakes
shall also be possible.
• The brake systems on the locomotive shall be so designed that no single fault shall reduce
the available brake effort by more than 50%
• Operation of the emergency brake by any means shall set the traction rate to zero.

Given that the rates of maximum deceleration for both the emergency and service brakes are
equal, it was felt during early stages of the project that a common actuator for the two braking
systems would be preferable in order to simplify the arrangement of the system on the bogie. This
was identified as allowable under the IMechE rules but It was clarified by the competition organisers
that the control systems for the emergency and service brakes should be separate. Consideration
was still given to systems that feature separate actuators in order to retain a variety of suitable
designs. It was also noted that the complexity added to the braking system by the manual release
would have to be fully integrated into the electronics and control systems to fully conform with the
rules.

6.3 Braking Force - Initial Calculations DW

While the mass of the locomotive at the early stages of development could only be estimated,
the specific force required to produce the required deceleration rate could be approximated using
Newton’s second law. This means that as a basic calculation the force applied at the wheel edge
needed to slow the locomotive should be 1.3 times the total mass of the train. Early estimates
suggested that the mass of the locomotive would be between 300 kg and 500 kg, thus requiring
between 390 N and 650 N constant force to provide a uniform deceleration rate.
The radius the braking force could be applied to was limited by the wheels, requiring the braking
force supplied by the actuator to be suitable of slowing the train at this location, including any factors
of safety as required. These constraints were used when researching initial systems.

6.4 Research into Full-Size Systems DW

Due to the commercial aspect of the IMechE competition technologies relevant to the full-sized
railway industry have been considered, most of which are friction-based systems providing varying
degrees of control, reliability and performance.
Braking designs during the early 20th century had to compete with increasing speeds and gra-
dients, initially relying on continuous chain-operated brakes [68]. These were superseded by a
combination of vacuum and air brakes, both of which operate on the principal of pressure differ-
ence [69].
Air brakes are now the most common type of brake on trains, utilising electronic control to give
precise control and increase passenger comfort.
Modern high speed trains operating above 124 miles per hour (mph) utilise separate braking
systems at different speeds. Energy recovery systems such as regenerative braking are oper-
ated at high speeds [70], which would otherwise cause rapid wear of conventional systems, with
pneumatic air brakes, such as those seen in Figure 40a, used at lower speeds [71].
76 CHAPTER 6. BRAKES

(a) Pneumatic brakes fitted to a Japanese (b) Eddy current brakes undergoing testing
Bullet Train [72] [73]

Figure 40: Braking systems used on modern trains

Another technology used in modern trains is eddy current braking, which generates a magnetic
field around a permanent magnet on the shaft when the locomotive needs to slow down. The
interaction of the magnet with the field creates eddy currents, impeding the rotation of the axles,
slowing the train [74]. Since the eddy current magnitude is proportional to the rotational velocity of
the axle, brakes of this design cannot be used to bring the train to a complete halt [75], though are
a highly effective method of achieving rapid deceleration [76]. The benefit of eddy current brakes
is the lack of wear on components, although secondary braking systems are still required [77].

6.5 Potential Systems For Miniature Locomotive Design DW

Not all full-size systems are applicable for small scale locomotives. Some technologies are not
sized appropriately, or not developed sufficiently to be usable in a competition-ready locomotive.
Consideration was given to the following potential designs, and thier use as either a service brake
for the train or as a fail-safe emergency brake:

6.5.1 Air Brakes

Braking systems employing compressed air are used by a number of miniature railways and are
popular because of their fail-safe nature [78]. The general availability of air compressors for com-
mercial vehicles makes them a common choice for diesel and electric scale locomotives. Whilst
both more energy efficient and smaller than similar vacuum brakes, air brakes have a much slower
application and release rate, possibly infringing the IMechE rules regarding application times.

6.5.2 Vacuum Brakes

Vacuum brakes are used by many scale railways due to their simplicity and the availability of appro-
priate parts [79] [80]. As with air brakes, the system uses a pump to create a pressure differential
inside the brake cylinder to apply a force. The cylinder is designed so that air can only flow in one
direction, meaning if the pump fails then the brakes are applied automatically and held. Leaks in
vacuum brake systems are difficult to detect, but can be mitigated by suitable design and assembly.
6.6. PROPOSED DESIGNS 77

6.5.3 Electromagnetic Brakes

Although used as a fail-safe method of braking in certain situations such as elevators [81], their
high cost compared to conventional braking systems makes them a rare choice for trains. Magnetic
brakes must be shaft mounted which was not an option during the project due to the suspension
systems designed.

6.5.4 Eddy Current Brakes

Although eddy current brakes would have a long lifespan, their non fail-safe design, and require-
ment for a secondary braking system make them unsuitable for this project. The energy recovery
system will also act in a similar way to eddy brakes, making them largely surplus to requirments.

6.5.5 Hydraulic Brakes

Hydraulic brakes are not a common feature of miniature railways, but they are used in applications
of similar weight and performance such as racing go-karts. Hydraulic systems use the relative
incompressibility of fluids to create a stopping force. Pressing the brake pedal forces brake fluid
from the master cylinder to the brake callipers, which in turn force the brake pads into the disc,
creating thermal energy through friction. Unfortunately such systems are not fail-safe as this is
not generally required in automotive applications. It would be possible to create a system where
the fluid pressure could be electronically controlled by the operator, as specified by the IMechE in
the technical specification. However, hydraulic brake systems are susceptible to total brake failure
in the event of a fluid leak [82], which according to the specifications would require at least two
separate braking systems to prevent such a failure.
Fail-safe hydraulic braking systems do exist [83], used in heavy machinery and mining equip-
ment, but the minimum brake disc size and torque supplied in all models found during extensive
research were both too large in terms of minimum brake disc radius or too powerful to be suitable
for a scale locomotive in all cases.
Hydraulic brakes applied directly to a shaft rather than through a disc brake applicator that were
of a suitable size and power could be found. They were discounted for the same reasons as the
electromagnetic braking system, namely difficulties when interacting with the suspension system.

6.6 Proposed Designs DW

6.6.1 Brake Disc Sizing

The size of the brake disc has a large impact on the overall performance of any disc brake system.
In order for the moments at both brake disc and wheel rim to be identical, the equivalent forces will
differ at a rate proportional to the radii of both components. Ideally the brake disc should be as
large as possible in order to maximise the braking force supplied. However, the size of the brake
disc is limited by the required clearances on the underside of the train.
A larger disc can also have negative consequences for the performance of the system. As the
radius increases, so does the mass and moment of inertia, both of which are proportional to the
square of the radius. The moment of inertia can be used to calculate the initial force required to
overcome the rotational kinetic energy of the disc brake to make it accelerate or de-accelerate at
the required rate. Figure 41 shows that overall, the additional required force applied at the disc
edge to allow for the deceleration is proportional to the radius cubed.
78 CHAPTER 6. BRAKES

Figure 41: The relationship between disc size and force required to overcome its motion

If the disc brake becomes too large, the supplied brake force will not be sufficient. In order
to balance these factors, a brake disc of radius 100 mm was selected. It was considered prefer-
able to minimise the losses due to the mass of the rotating components in order to maximise the
effectiveness of the braking force supplied.

6.6.2 Braking Force - Improved Calculations

Following the sizing of the brake disc, a more accurate calculation for the required brake force
supplied by a brake cylinder could be made. The results are shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Calculations made to assess required force output from any locomotive braking system

The figure of providing 2000 N of stopping force to any brake callipers was therefore taken
forward as a minimum target value when considering the selection of braking systems.

6.6.3 Vacuum Braking System

Vacuum braking components can be subdivided into:

• A vacuum pump: a vacuum pump consists of two one-way valves which surround a small
chamber. Air is forced out of the chamber and the outlet to the air then closed. The inlet is
then opened, causing air to enter the chamber. This process is then repeated many times
until a vacuum is achieved and the process stops.
• Actuators: vacuum brake actuators, like air brake cylinders, have a diaphragm which is forced
to contract upwards when a vacuum is only present on one side of the system. They are
designed such that air can pass through from the upper chamber to the lower chamber,
allowing a vacuum to be created throughout the system before it is purged on the lower side
of the diaphragm. Each cylinder can supply a maximum of 550 N of force at atmospheric
pressure [84] which based on the calculations made in Section 6.6.2 would be more than
sufficient to slow the train if four cylinders were used.
6.6. PROPOSED DESIGNS 79

• Reservoirs: unlike those used in air braking systems, vacuum brake reservoirs do not need
to be protected from depressurisation. Simple, lightweight PVC components exist which can
store the vacuum and limit the effect of leaks on the overall system.
• Valves: a solenoid valve can be used to control the flow of air through a system. When
a current is applied the valve changes position and this in turn can be used to control the
direction of fluid flow through the solenoid. The valve would connect the braking system
to the pump when first starting the braking system, to charge the reservoirs, and when the
operator wishes to release the brakes. In all other circumstances the system will be open to
atmospheric pressure.
• Piping: as with an air braking system, PVC tubing is needed to connect all of the components
together. The volume of the PVC tubing is very small compared to the overall volume of the
components, so the location and length of tubing, within reason, should not have any effect
on the overall performance of the system.

6.6.4 Systems Comparison

In order to select which system was preferable, key parameters were used to create a binary
weighting matrix to rank the various criteria in order of importance. The comparison showed that
the most important features were the fail-safe nature of the system and the overall size of the
system. Reliability, performance and response time were also shown to be a priority over cost,
innovation and noise.

Table 14: Binary weighting matrix showing the relative importance of braking parameters

Based on this assessment, a vacuum brake system was selected to be used within the loco-
motive. Four actuators were to be used, located on the bogies along with the reservoirs and the
pump located inside the frame of the train. Given the compact size of the vacuum pump and the
easy availability of specialist parts specific to miniature railways, design of such a system was
considered relatively simple and sufficiently reliable to be selected.
80 CHAPTER 6. BRAKES

6.6.5 Manual Release

The rules specify a need for the brakes to be manually released in event of the train developing
a fault and needing to be moved by hand, and then reapplied to hold the train again. Following
clarification from the IMechE, the system also needed to be clear to those around the train that
the brakes were being released, self-contained within the locomotive unit and so designed that it
prevented a runaway train scenario.

(a) Brake calliper direction of application/re- (b) A vacuum pump used to

lease bleed brakes from cars

Figure 42: Two potential methods of manually releasing the brakes

• Cable slackening: if a brake cable or pivoting rod were used to transfer braking force from
the braking cylinder to the actuator, a handle or lever to disable the transfer of force could be
used. The release of the handle would then result in the brakes being reapplied, in a form of
dead man’s handle which prevents train runaway.
• Counter force on callipers: as a second option, an opposing force could be applied to the
callipers, reducing the net force acting on the brake disc as shown in Figure 42a. It would not
be necessary for the brakes to be released completely for movement of the train to occur. A
human male can supply around 130 N of force through their hand when it is in a power grip
position [85]. The use of rods and mechanical advantage would allow one person to provide
sufficient force to counteract the action of the brakes. Alternatively, a ratchet brake similar
to the handbrake in a car was proposed, which could be used to hold the brakes off and the
released, though this was discounted due to the possibility of a runaway train if grip on the
handle was lost.
• Manual operation of the vacuum pump: during ordinary operation, the braking system is
released by creating a vacuum on the lower side of the cylinder by closing off the pipes with a
solenoid valve and the use of an electronic vacuum pump. The same effect could be achieved
by using both a manually closed valve and a hand powered vacuum pump. The premise of
a manual vacuum pump is very similar to that of an air pump for balloons with the valves
reversed. Such systems are used in applications ranging from vacuum sealing in the third
world where electricity is not available to bleeding air from brake fluid in cars.

Due to the design of the bogies, the direct distance between the brake cylinder and the actuator
was limited to around 20 mm. Due to the constraints of positioning and sizing, it was decided that
cable slackening brake cables or brake rods was not an ideal system to be used in the locomotive.
6.7. INTEGRATION WITH OTHER SYSTEMS 81

It was also decided that loading both the callipers and the cylinder with an additional counterforce
could be damaging to the diaphragm within the brake cylinder. Therefore, the manual vacuum
pump was selected as the best method for applying vacuum brakes.

6.7 Integration with Other Systems MM DW

During the design process, the braking system was required to integrate with the microprocessor
to allow control over the system. This is provided through a single component - a solenoid valve.
There is a T-junction within the valve, where one of the branches is separated from the others.
When a current is applied, the internal valve switches. One of the branches is open to atmospheric
pressure, the other to the electronic pump. The third branch connects to the rest of the braking
system. The operation and positioning of the valve in the system is designed such that in event
of power failure, the lower half of the braking system returns to atmospheric pressure, acting as a
fail-safe.

Figure 43: The solenoid valve used to control the braking system

The selection of the brake solenoid is discussed in more detail in Section 7.4.3. Although it was
primarily selected for its ability to handle vacuum pressures, the volumetric capacity and its size
compatibility with the vacuum brake components. The overall simplicity of the system means that
the emergency systems needed to apply the brakes in event of a detected fault or the press of the
emergency stop button can simply cut power to the valve in order to guarantee maximum braking
force.
The system was also fitted with pressure sensors in order to monitor the performance of the
braking system. These will allow the operator to guarantee without visual inspection that the brakes
are functioning as expected and that leaks have not occurred that will impair the operation of the
system.

6.8 Final Design DW

6.8.1 System Diagram

The final system layout is displayed in Figure 44. The main bulk of the system was relocated into
the frame rather than on the bogies, with one input air line per bogie and two return lines. The
pumps for normal operation and manual release are located on shelves built into the frame. The
four reservoirs and emergency release valves are to be located as close to each other as possible
in order to allow all the brakes to be purged at the same time.
82 CHAPTER 6. BRAKES

Figure 44: The final system diagram

The flow of air around the system is also displayed in Figure 44. Arrowheads indicate the
direction of air flow during normal operation, and dotted lines indicate areas which are controlled
when the manual release is being used. Finally, green lines indicate areas that are permanent
vacuums during normal use, and yellow lines vacuums that are temporary depending on whether
the brakes are applied or not.

6.8.2 Calliper Cylinder Interaction

Figure 45: A CAD model of the braking system

Originally, it had been anticipated that either a cable or direct rod connection could have been used
to connect the vacuum braking system to the calliper. However, the actuator travels in a purely
horizontal movement and the brake callipers move in an arc pattern, meaning that a rod design
was discounted. A system was devised, shown in Figure 45, connecting the two components but
also allowing a small amount of rotation in the plate connection between two bolts. The plates are
both made of 4 mm thick steel. The system is held in place by a number of hex bolts.
In order to confirm that the design was suitable for use within the locomotive, it underwent static
6.8. FINAL DESIGN 83

stress testing using an FEA package in SolidWorks. The braking system was modelled by applying
a pull force to the cylinder brake rod and fixing the bolt that attaches to the callipers. The results
are shown in Figure 45 and confirm that the method of interaction is suitable. The factor of safety
at its lowest point is 1.5, but the majority of the system has a factor of safety of at least 5. Given
that the system will be under less stress in service, due to the movement of the brake calliper lever,
this factor of safety is allowable.

Figure 46: The results of stress testing on the system

6.8.3 Callipers
The brake callipers, seen in Figure 47a were sourced from an American company, “Air heart brake”,
selected for their size and ability to handle the 550 N of force supplied by each actuator. The cal-
lipers were designed using imperial measurements, meaning that in order to allow proper inter-
action between the actuator and the callipers the holes on the brake lever were drilled out to M8
holes.

6.8.4 Brake Disc

The final brake disc, shown in Figure 47b, has a diameter of 200 mm. In order to allow the brake
disc to fit into the brake calliper and onto its keyway on the axle, the disc is 10 mm thick towards
the centre of the disc, and tapers to 5 mm thick at a radius of 50 mm. This is discussed in greater
detail in Section 8.8.1.
84 CHAPTER 6. BRAKES

(a) A side view of the Airheart MB1 (b) The completed brake disc attached to
Brake Caliper the wheelset

Figure 47: Two components forming the connection between the braking system and the track

6.8.5 Manual Release

In order to achieve a sufficiently large vacuum to release the brakes, the decision was taken to use
a purpose built vacuum pump designed for purging air pockets in brake fluid in automobiles. In
addition, a small hand operated ball valve was added beyond the exhaust valve of the electronic
solenoid valve in order to close the system off manually to allow release of the brakes.

6.9 Final Calculations for Braking System DW

In order to confirm that the brakes would match the performance requirements for the competition,
a set of final calculations for the system were drawn up, shown in Table 15.

Table 15: Brake system calculations

The table shows that the projected rate of deceleration is just over 1.22 m/s2 , which is within the
required tolerances set by the IMechE. In order to reduce the overall reliance on maximum capacity
operation of the vacuum pump while still maintaining the required performance, investigation into
enhancing the coefficient of friction of the brake pads was set as a pre-competition task.

6.10 System Assembly DW

The braking system was assembled by hand. The top priority during assembly was ensuring that
the system prevented leakage of air into the upper half of the braking system containing the reser-
6.11. TESTING 85

voirs and emergency release valves as a return to atmospheric pressure renders the brakes non-
functional. The manufacturer of the vacuum reservoirs recommend sealing of the components with
epoxy glue but in addition tape was placed around the edges of the cylinder to protect the seal from
damage and for aesthetic reasons.

(a) The braking cylinder (b) The vacuum reservoir

Figure 48: Photographs of the assembled components

6.11 Testing DW
In order to confirm that the brakes were assembled correctly and performed as expected, a number
of tests were carried out before the braking system was fitted into the locomotive. Initially, these
concerned only the function of the vacuum braking system rather than callipers and brake disc due
to delays in the arrival of the brake callipers. Full systems testing including the brake callipers is
discussed in Section 13.

6.11.1 Manual Release

The procedure for manually releasing the brakes is as follows, assuming the brake reservoirs have
been charged:

• Switch off the system

• Manually seal the brake system from external air supply using a valve
• Squeeze the pump repeatedly to induce a vacuum in the braking system
• Open the valve to reapply the brakes.

This set of instructions was followed multiple times throughout the testing period in order to
confirm that the system functioned as expected. The system was confirmed to work through mea-
surement of the distance between the brake rod tip and the brake casing. The rod can be seen
moving to its release position as the handle is squeezed and returning to a fully applied position
when the valve was reopened. The total travel of the rod was 20 mm.

6.11.2 Leak Detection and Removal

Even small leaks in vacuum braking systems can have huge effects on their performance. This was
seen early on in the assembly process where cylinders would apply automatically in the event of
switching the pump off and return to a non applied position within 10 seconds. This was due entirely
to the cylinder not being properly sealed when assembled and correct. All cylinders were tested
in order to confirm that they performed as expected following assembly and necessary alterations
made.
86 CHAPTER 6. BRAKES

(a) Leak testing and detection with one (b) Operational testing with three brake
brake cylinder cylinders

Figure 49: A number of different cylinder configurations were tested

6.11.3 Full System Test of Vacuum System

It was deemed prudent to bench test the entire braking system before it was fitted into the locomo-
tive. The system was run repeatedly through cycles of release and reapplication and confirmed to
work as expected within the parameters set out in the specification. Most importantly the brakes ap-
plied within the 0.25 second window set out in the specification, a figure which had been expected
based on the specification of the system components but had yet to be tested fully. Additionally, the
travel of all cylinders was measured in order to confirm that the forces specified by the manufacturer
matched with those that would be provided in service.
7. Electronics and Control
7.1 System Overview QA
Since most of the systems on the locomotive must be controlled remotely, the electronics and
control system is an integral part of the locomotive design. Much like the engine control unit in a
car, electronically controlled systems on the locomotive require the design of control methods to
ensure optimal performance and remote monitoring of systems.
Initial research was conducted to choose a suitable microprocessor that is able to communicate
and control other subsystems on the locomotive. Details of the research including considerations,
selection and software implementation are covered in Section 7.2. In addition, the development
of sensor systems required by the competition is presented in Section 7.3. Comparison of the
different measurement methods, the selection and the details of component design are discussed.
Throughout the project, an ongoing dialogue with other subsystem design teams in the loco-
motive including the traction, braking and energy recovery systems was upheld. This was done
to ensure that the chosen systems can be electronically controlled and appropriate control meth-
ods can be implemented. Details of the braking system control are presented in Section 7.4. The
traction motors control method using a four quadrant motor controller and the microprocessor are
discussed in Section 7.5. Furthermore, the design of an ancillary battery system was seen as an
important aspect of the overall system to power different components. The selection, implementa-
tion and monitoring of the battery system is discussed in Section 7.6.
Upon testing them individually, all of the electronics and control systems were integrated to-
gether to form a single unit. Details of the hardware and software testing are shown in Section 7.8.
Due to time constraints, many automated processes and functions were not implemented. Recom-
mendations and improvements before the competition are outlined in Section 14.

7.2 Microprocessor QA

7.2.1 Introduction
In the 1940s, Integrated Circuit (IC) technology was born due to the desire to produce improved
military technology during the Second World War. ICs offered the advantage of harnessing hun-
dreds of components in a very small area in addition to the ability to increase systems complexity
and integration. With the invention of Metal Oxide Semiconductors (MOS) in 1971, IC design then
evolved into microprocessors allowing greater performance and reliability. With the rise of Mecha-
tronics as a result of these advancements, many applications nowadays rely on the integration
of electronic technology and mechanical systems using microprocessors as tools to control and
process information and make decisions [86].
A microprocessor is essentially a small computer featuring three main components:

• A Central Processing Unit (CPU) to perform logic and mathematical operations

• A memory where data and instructions are stored
• Input and Output (IO) pins to move the data between the hardware and software.

Microprocessors are powerful tools that are able to control various processes such as industrial

87
88 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

automation, electric current, temperature and engine performance. Nowadays, the application of
microprocessors in railway systems allows the control of various systems in the locomotives as well
as monitor on-board equipment. Modern railway trains such as the Japanese Shinkasen, British
High Speed Trains (HST) or the French TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse) utilise microprocessors to
control safe and reliable traction systems that enable the trains to go beyond speeds of 200 mph
[87].
One of the main requirements of the IMechE Railway Challenge is to be able to control all
functions on the locomotive using a radio-based or a cable-based transmission. This meant that
full electronic control of all functions and systems must be used as part of the locomotive design.
Due to the number of functions required to be controlled, a microprocessor was required.

7.2.2 Selection Considerations

To compare different microprocessors, the following were taken into consideration:

Input/Output (IO) Capabilities

The first parameter to consider in choosing a microprocessor is its input and output capabilities.
This includes the type of IOs the microcontroller can cope with such as analogue and digital signals
and the number of corresponding pins available. The choice is therefore dependant on the functions
required from the application. At an early stage of the design phase and with rough knowledge of
the functions required, a microcontroller with a large and broad range of IOs was required.

Cost

The cost of microprocessors, much like computers, varies depending on the features they offer.
Some microprocessors can be as cheap as £25 but are very slow and can only process digital
signals whilst others can cost hundreds of pounds but can perform the tasks a normal personal
computer would.

Speed

Speed is an important technical parameter to consider. Although most microprocessors can meet
most applications’ speed requirements, the speed can reduce as large data volumes and infor-
mation are fed into it. In a lot of applications, this is avoided by using multiple microprocessors
performing different tasks at the same time.

Communication between Hardware and Software

As mentioned earlier, the rules of the competition require that all functions in the locomotive are
operated remotely via a radio-based or a cable-based transmission. To allow remote use but not
risk reliability, a microprocessor with both types of transmission was desired.

Software

The software tools used to program a microprocessor is a major consideration in choosing one.
The programming languages vary between microprocessors and the programming experience of
the group was an important consideration. It was essential to select a microprocessor that has an
easily programmable software that allows flexibility and makes the process of debugging easy and
quick.
7.2. MICROPROCESSOR 89

Memory

The size of a microprocessor’s memory can be an important consideration as it also determines

the amount of data that can be stored and used to perform the various required functions.

7.2.3 Overview of Different Microprocessors

Arduino Boards

Arduino boards have become the largest and fastest growing hardware and software embedded
platforms and has become extremely popular in the robotics hobbyists market. Arduino boards
are good solutions to perform simple tasks from flashing LEDs to moving a small aircraft wing.
They are based on C++ programming experience although can be implemented using LabVIEW.
Arduino boards vary in price but are considered to be relatively cheap with prices ranging from
£30 to £180. They have a large online platform with hundreds of sample codes available on online
forums and communities. With 14 digital IO pins and 6 analogue input pins, Arduino boards can
be limited to prototyping but cannot operate an entire full-scale system. They also have a relatively
slow processor with a maximum speed of 20 MHz and a small memory that can only cope with very
few megabytes of data. Furthermore, Arduinos come with an Ethernet cable to communicate with
their software tools. An add-on shield is required to be able to use wireless communication such
as Wi-Fi or Bluetooth and these can significantly reduce the speed of the board when used [88].

Raspberry Pi

Raspberry Pi single-board computers were introduced into the market in 2012 targeting young gen-
erations and encouraging them to enter computer science disciplines. A complete functional mini-
computer, the Raspberry Pi can be programmed using a wide range of programming languages
such as Python, C/C++ and Bash which gives the opportunity for a broad range of programming
experiences. Due to its Linux operating system and the need to install code libraries, Raspberry
Pi coding is not as flexible as other microprocessors. On the other hand, it is 40 times faster than
Arduino boards and has 128,000 times more memory. Raspberry Pi can multitask processes mak-
ing it an excellent tool for projects requiring more interactivity and processing power. At a relatively
cheap price of about £30, Raspberry Pi relies on an Ethernet cable to communicate with the soft-
ware. With only 8 IO pins, the mini computer is limited when it comes to reading analogue signals
as it does not have an onboard analogue-to-digital converter (ADC) [89].

BeagleBone Black Boards

Similar to the Raspberry Pi BeagleBone borads are mini computers with analogue inputs. They are
generally more expensive than other microprocessors at a price range of £85-£110. They contain
a 1 MHz processor and 69 IO pins offering the fastest and most comprehensive IO capability.
BeagleBone boards are programmed using the same Linux operating system that Rasberry Pi
uses making the software experience difficult [90].

National Instruments (NI) myRIO

The myRIO microprocessor is the most recent addition to NI’s Reconfigurable IO (RIO) architecture
line of controllers. It is widely considered the most student-friendly microprocessor on the market.
With LabVIEW as the main programming language, the graphical programming language offers an
easy and an interactive programming environment for designing and integrating complex systems.
The myRIO includes ten analogue inputs, six analogue outputs, forty lines of digital IOs in addition
90 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

to two audio channels. It also has an onboard Wi-Fi hotspot enabling easy communication with
laptops or tablet devices without the need to use Ethernet cables. The Field Programmable Gate
Array (FPGA) in the internal architecture gives the microprocessor high core speed as well as the
flexibility to prototype and iterate designs quickly. Although expensive, the comprehensive tools
that the myRIO provides give a reliable platform to operate and integrate systems in an easy and
quick manner [91].

(a) Arduino Board [88] (b) Rasberry Pi mini computer [89]

(d) National Instruments myRIO micropro-

(c) BeagleBone Black Board [90]
cessor [91]

Figure 50: Different microprocessors

Microprocessor GPIO pins Hardware and Software Communication Cost Core Speed Software Memory
Arduino Boards 14 Ethernet Cable £30 16 MHz Ardunio IDE (C/C++) 64 MB
Rasberry Pi 8 Ethernet Cable, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth £30 700 MHz Python, C/C++, Bash 512 MB
BeagleBone Black 69 Ethernet Cable, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth £100 1 GHz Python, C/C++, Bash 512 MB
NI myRIO 40 Ethernet Cable, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth £500 667 MHz LabVIEW, C/C++ 512 MB

Table 16: Summary of the key performance parameters of different microprocessors

7.2.4 Microprocessor Selection

To select a microprocessor from all the aforementioned options, a binary weighting matrix was
constructed as shown in Figure 51 to evaluate the relative importance of each of the considerations
explained earlier.
7.2. MICROPROCESSOR 91

Figure 51: Binary weighting matrix showing the relative importance of microprocessor parameters

Having done that, a score on a scale of 1-6 was given to each of the microprocessors based on
the parameters presented in Table 16. As can be seen in Figure 51, the NI myRIO had the highest
score and was therefore chosen as the microprocessor to be used in the project.

Figure 52: Overall score of microprocessors

7.2.5 myRIO Inputs and Outputs

During the design phase of the project, it was necessary to communicate with other groups in the
team about their system design and control method. As such, information about the functions of
each subsystem and the type of inputs and outputs required were collected throughout to plan the
software and hardware tools required from the myRIO. This was to ensure that the capabilities of
the myRIO were not exceeded and that actions or alternative functions were planned early on in
the process. Table 17 shows the final input and output requirements from the microprocessor.
Subsystem Device Function Input/Output Digital/Analogue Pins Required/device Circuit required
Sensor Systems Hall effect Sensor Speed Measurement Input Digital 1 Pull up resistor (1kOmega)
Thermistor Fire Protection Input Analogue 2 Potential divider (10 k ohm)
Pressure Switch Braking fault indication Input Digital 1 N/A
Brakes Solenoid valves Braking System Output Digital 1 Transistor switch
Traction Motor Controller Motor Control Output Analogue 1 N/A
Motor Controller Switch Forward/reverse Output Digital 1 Transistor switch
Energy Recovery Soft charge switch Charging through resistor supercapacitor Output Digital 1 Transistor Switch
Generator Switch Directly charging supercapcitor Output Digital 1 Transistor Switch
Supercapacitor Switch Switch Supercapacitor Output Digital 1 Transistor Switch
Supercapacitor Discharge Switch Discharge Supercapacitor Output Digital 1 Transistor Switch
Voltmeter Measuring voltage across supercapacitors Input Analogue 2 Potential Divider
Temperature measurement NTC Thermistor Input Analogue 2 Potential divider
Batteries Voltmeter Measuring voltage across batteries Input Analogue 1 Potential Divider
Current sensors Measuring current in wires Input Analogue 1 Amplifier

Table 17: Subsystem functions and the corresponding input and output requirements from the
myRIO microprocessor

For each of the functions, LabVIEW Virtual Instruments (VIs) were created and tested with the
92 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

required hardware as will be shown in the following sections. Within each VI, global variables were
created and added to a tablet variables library. Using the Wi-Fi hotspot feature on the myRIO
microprocessor and the NI Data Dashboard application, the global variables can be used to create
a user-friendly interface to control the functions remotely from a tablet as shown in Figure 53.

Figure 53: NI Data Dashboard application [91]

7.3 Sensor Systems QA

7.3.1 Speed Measurement

As specified by clause 5.6 of the competition’s Technical Specification [15], the speed of the loco-
motive must be measured and indicated to the operator and the challenge judge. As such, several
techniques were investigated and compared to determine their suitability for the application.

Measurement Methods

• Optical Sensors
Optical-based methods of speed measurement rely on the principle of photodetection whereby
an LED is aligned on one side of a perforated opaque disc as shown in Figure 54. On the
other side of the disc, a photodetector is fixed opposite to the LED light. When the disc
rotates, the LED light alternately passes through the transparent parts of the disc. The varia-
tion of the light output produces a square wave signal of which the frequency can be used to
calculate the speed of the wheel or the vehicle based on the number of holes on the disc.

Figure 54: Schematic arrangement of optical speed measurement [92]

7.3. SENSOR SYSTEMS 93

The main advantage of using optical sensors is that they provide a contactless measurement
method. They are known for being accurate and sensitive. Although they are used in a wide
variety of industrial applications, optical speed sensors have a number of weaknesses. The
use of optical components means that sensors are always susceptible to dirt and interfer-
ences from other sources. Traces of dirt or fog can significantly reduce the amount of light
passing to the detector causing unreliable readings and measurements. Another problem
with these type of sensors is the ageing of the LEDs. With their short lifetime, LED light
signals can decrease or deteriorate quickly causing another reliability problem. With unpre-
dictable weather conditions on the track, the lack of reliability as well as the cost implications
of making a perforated disc, optical speed sensors were discounted.
• Global Positioning System (GPS)
Speed measurement using GPS are based on a series of trackpoints that record the posi-
tion estimates (latitude and longitude) of an object that are taken at regular time intervals.
The distances between the consecutive positions and time values are then used to calcu-
late the speed [93]. Although seemingly a simple method, GPS speed measurement was not
considered further because it can be unreliable and inaccurate. Each trackpoint is usually as-
sociated with an error due to satellite signals delays. Therefore, the accumulated measured
distances and hence the calculated various speed can be misleading.
• Accelerometers
Accelerometers are very powerful rugged devices used in a wide range of applications to
measure acceleration, vibration, position and orientation. The fundamental mathematical
principle behind using accelerometers to measure speed is to integrate the acceleration sig-
nal to obtain speed. However, the signal processing of accelerometers is not as simple as
that. As an object moves and varies its speed, the signal level varies from its first initial value.
This introduces an error into the velocity measurement known as drift which is equal to the
amount of variation. Integration as an addition process will keep adding the errors leading
to inaccurate speed values. This can be avoided by installing more than one accelerometer
but the signal processing remains difficult and therefore accelerometers were not considered
further for speed measurement.
• Hall Effect Sensors
Much like optical methods, Hall effect speed measurement is a contactless method. Based
on the principle that a sensor varies its output voltage due to a magnetic field, Hall effect
sensors are very popular as wheel speed sensors due to their accuracy and reliability. Usually
Hall effect devices are configured as on-off switches giving a high state when the sensor
passes by a magnetic field and a low state when the sensor is not aligned with the magnet.
Similar to optical methods, Hall effect sensors generate a square wave which can be used
to calculate the speed using the time intervals between the high states [94]. This method
offers flexibility as to where the source of the magnetic field is. The magnet can be inside the
sensor and a high state is induced when a ferromagnetic material aligns with the sensor. On
the other hand, the source of the magnetic field can be an external permanent magnet with
the sensor producing a high state every time it aligns with the magnet. With this amount of
flexibility, accuracy, and reliability, Hall effect speed measurement was considered to be the
most effective method for calculating the speed of the locomotive and hence was chosen to
be implemented.
94 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

Design and Testing

To allow for design adaptability, the NPN sensor shown in Figure 55a was chosen. The bolt-like
design gives the flexibility to freely vary the distance between the magnet and the sensor. As
seen in Figure 55b, the sensor has a built-in magnet which means that an output voltage can be
produced by a ferromagnetic material or an external permanent magnet. The sensor is powered
using the 5 V DC supply pin from the myRIO microprocessor with a 1 kΩ pull-up resistor between
the output and the supplied voltage to ensure a positive output (high state) is produced from the
sensor when it is aligned with a magnet.

(b) Speed sensor internal circuit [95]

(a) The selected NPN Hall effect
sensor [95]

Figure 55: Speed sensor

To test the sensor, the LabVIEW VI shown in Figure 56 was created. A timer starts when
a high state is generated due to the alignment of a magnetic field with the sensor. The time
difference between two consecutive high states is recorded and is inverted to obtain a frequency.
The frequency value can be used to calculate the speed of a rotating part by using:

C
Speed (m/s) = RPM (7.3.1)
60
where C is the circumference of the rotating part.

Figure 56: LabVIEW RPM VI

The sensor was tested with the Lynch traction motors with the set-up shown in Figure 57a.
A magnet was attached to the motor shaft with a 1.5 cm distance from the sensor; sufficient to
7.3. SENSOR SYSTEMS 95

produce an output voltage. Using the LabVIEW VI developed to control the motor as shown in
Figure 57a, the voltage across the motor terminals was varied, rotating the shaft and producing
both an RPM and a speed indicator using the front panel shown in Figure 57b.

(b) Front panel interface for measuring the

RPM and speed

(a) Experimental set-up for testing the

speed sensor

Figure 57: Speed sensor test

Whilst testing, one problem that was noticed with this methodology is that the timer is contin-
uously counting after a high state. This means that when the rotating part stops, the speed value
does not go to zero as the last time value is still recorded. To overcome this problem, the MATLAB
code shown in Figure 58 was written. The code defines a threshold time value and controls whether
the timer continues or stops. If the timer value is lower than the set threshold, the counter should
continue and a speed value is calculated. If the threshold value is exceeded, the timer should stop
and a zero speed value is produced. The threshold time value can be determined by the slowest
expected speed of the rotating part.

Figure 58: MATLAB code for RPM timer

Sensor and Magnet Mounting

After evaluating space in the bogie assembly, it was decided to use the axle as the rotating part
for measuring the locomotive speed. A magnet is put in the bracket shown in Figure 59a which
is fitted to the axle. The sensor is mounted on the L-shaped bracket as seen in Figure 59c. Both
96 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

brackets were manufactured using 3D printing techniques using PLA plastic as the material as
seen in Figures 59b and 59d.

(b) Magnet bracket placed on axle

(a) Magnet bracket modelled in CAD

(c) Sensor bracket modelled in CAD (d) A prototype of the sensor bracket

Figure 59: Speed sensor and magnet brackets

7.3.2 Fire Detection

As part of the safety systems to be included in the locomotive, the competition’s Technical Speci-
fication [15] requires that a heat detection system must be fitted in the locomotive. ‘In the event of
operation, the system shall:

• Cause the emergency brake to be operated

• Sound an alarm as to be selected by the team
• Activate indication to the operator’

To achieve these requirements, research was conducted on the different types of heat detection
systems to determine their suitability and application. In general, there are two methods for detect-
ing fire from the presence of heat:
7.3. SENSOR SYSTEMS 97

• Fixed Temperature Heat Detectors which operate when the measured temperature exceeds
a predetermined temperature.
• Rate-of-Rise (ROR) Heat Detectors which operate when the measured temperature in-
crease over time is equal or greater than the rate of change the detector was manufactured
to operate at.

The measurement method generally depends on the temperature measurement conditions. In a

closed space like the locomotive, regular rapid temperature changes can occur meaning that an
ROR heat detection method is prone to false alarms. Therefore, a fixed temperature heat detection
method was preferred.

Measurement Methods

• Electromehcanical
Electromechanical heat detectors operate due to a mechanical movement that sends an elec-
trical signal. The most common type is a bi-metallic strip which is has one end fixed whilst
the other is free to move depending on its temperature. When the temperature is increased,
the bi-metallic strip expands and completes an electrical circuit that actuates an alarm.
• Optomechanical
Optomechanical detectors contain one or more fibre optic cables separated by a heat sensi-
tive insulator and protected by an outer case. A light signal is passed through the fibre optic
cable so that when the detector is exposed to heat, the insulator melts. This implies that the
light signal will be discontinued while activating the fire alarm.
• Electronic (Thermistors)
The most common type of heat detectors are those that use thermistors as their heat sensitive
element. Thermistors are resistors whose resistance changes according to temperature.
The resistance-temperature relationship is non-linear and therefore thermistors can be very
sensitive to temperature changes making them a good candidate for fire detection.

Circuit Design and Testing

To design a thermistor-based heat detection circuit, a 1 kΩ Negative Temperature Coefficient (NTC)

thermistor was connected in series with a 1 kΩ resistor as shown in Figure 60. As the temperature
rises, a decrease in resistance causes the voltage to drop.

Figure 60: Potential divider circuit for temperature measurement

By monitoring the voltage across the thermistor, the resistance can be calculated using the po-
tential divider equation. The value of the resistance can then be used to calculate the temperature
98 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

using the Steinhart-Hart relationship shown by Equation 7.3.4:

RT
Vout = Vin (7.3.2)
RT + R1

R1 Vout
RT = (7.3.3)
Vin − Vout

β
T = (7.3.4)
ln( rR∞T )
−β
where r∞ = Ro e To , Ro is the resistance measured at room temperature, β is the thermistor coeffi-
cient and To is room temperature (i.e 25o C).
To test the system, the circuit was built on a breadboard as shown in Figure 61 with a heat gun
as the main source of heat for testing.

Figure 61: Fire detection circuit

Figure 62: LabVIEW temperature measurement VI

The VI shown in Figure 62 was created to achieve the three main system requirements. A
threshold value can be set depending on the temperature conditions inside the shell of the locomo-
tive. When that value is exceeded, a digital signal is sent to the brakes channel to activate them.
Simultaneously, the digital signal activates a pop-up window to inform the operator of the fire. With
regard to the sound alarm, this can be achieved by using an analogue output on the myRIO with a
sine waveform generator.

7.4 Brake System MM

The braking system is one of the most crucial on the train, hence the design has to reflect the
importance of this safety critical system. As discussed in Section 6, the chosen design is a vacuum
braking system coupled to mechanical disc brakes. The vacuum pushes the brake callipers off the
7.4. BRAKE SYSTEM 99

disc allowing the locomotive to move and when the vacuum is released the brakes are automatically
applied. The control of the braking system involves manipulation of the pressure inside the braking
system.

7.4.1 Design Requirements

There are a number of rules specified by the IMechE governing the operation of the braking system,
which provided a number of design criteria to work towards in the design of the system. A summary
of the rules and the impact they have on the system architecture is seen below:

• Maximum deceleration of 1.3 m/s2 : The pressure must be manipulated inside the system
such that the force applied to the calliper does not cause a braking rate above specification
deceleration.
• Automatic application of the brakes in the event of a power failure and in case remote control
is lost: the pressure manipulation device has to be fail safe, such that when power is lost the
system is re-pressurised to atmospheric pressure and the brakes are applied. The myRIO will
constantly monitor the status of the connection with the control device (tablet). If connection
is lost the brakes must be applied.
• Emergency stop button (apply brakes within 0.25 seconds): an emergency stop button will
activate the brakes by re-pressurising the system
• Indications of braking fault: pressure sensors are required to monitor the status of the vac-
uum.

Taking these rules into consideration greatly influenced the system design, giving clear deliver-
ables to work towards.

7.4.2 Component Selection

A selection of braking components, as seen in the Section 6, was made through extensive market
research for their suitability to miniature railways, the braking forces achievable and their fail-safe
operation. Purely from a control perspective, the selected vacuum pump has many beneficial
features for this system:

• Automatic internal pressure triggered switch for shut off when the system is evacuated, re-
ducing energy consumption
• Adjustable pressure switch for manual adjustment in baseline system pressure, setting the
maximum braking force
• Internal fusing and circuitry protection.

To vary the braking force applied to the brake callipers, a method of electronically manipulating
the pressure inside the braking system was necessary. Vacuum brakes traditionally have been
used with manual progressive valves to vary the pressure inside the system. To enable the remote
control of this system, electronic variants of these valves were required. Progressive electronic
valves are not readily available with the majority of electronically controlled flow devices being
on/off solenoid valves. The selection of this solenoid valve depended on a number of criteria:

• Integration with the components already selected. All connections have to fit with the rest of
the system.
• The valve is able to operate with the working fluid as air
100 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

• A suitable operating voltage and current for integration with rest of the control system
• The flow rate through the valve is enough to satisfy the safety cut-out response time.

The first point was easily achievable by specifying that the solenoid (through connection adapters)
could mate with the PVC hose supplied by PNP railways. The majority of valves on the market are
capable of working with a number of working fluids, air being the most common. A useful solenoid
coil operating voltage would be 12 V, as the majority of subsystems have components operate at
this voltage. This is not a common voltage for the size of the valve required but a simple DC-DC
converter or battery packs in series could be used. A market search of solenoid valves yielded
a suitable manufacturer with a wide product range, SMC solenoid valves. A threaded brass body
allows for barb fittings to be attached, simplifying the pipe-valve interface. To narrow down the SMC
product range, it was useful to review the required response time. This is the most important factor
as it will give an indication of the latency between a control input and a mechanical response. A
simple volumetric estimate of the braking system, coupled with the necessary response time from
the rules gave a required flow rate:

System Internal Volume 0.088 L

Required Flow Rate = = = 21.2 L/min (7.4.1)
Response Time 0.25 s

Using the SMC datasheet [96] the volumetric flow rate can be approximated as a function of the
upstream and downstream pressures (P1 = 0.1 MPa and P2 =0.02 − 0.03 MPa. This is illustrated by
the red line in Figure 63, showing a flow rate of around 30 L/min. By comparing the required volu-
metric flow rate with the value achievable with each series of SMC solenoid valves, an appropriate
valve was be selected. The VX311 series provides more than adequate flow rate for the required
response time. Some assumptions were made in performing this calculation:

• Flow rate will not be constant throughout the re-pressurisation of the braking system, as P1
and P2 change over time
• The brakes may be ‘applied’ despite the system not being fully evacuated, full application
occurs when the system is at atmospheric pressure
• The calculation does not take into account the pressure differential across the membrane
inside the actuator. This will increase the flow rate through the solenoid valve by changing
the controlled volume, maintaining the upstream pressure for a prolonged period of time.

Despite these assumptions the analysis gives a positive indication that the braking system will
perform to the required specification.
7.4. BRAKE SYSTEM 101

Figure 63: Upstream and downstream pressure against volumetric flow rate [96]

Once this solenoid had been selected, the next step was to integrate with the myRIO microcon-
troller.

7.4.3 System Design

A solenoid switch can be modelled as an inductor (a coil) which induces a magnetic field when
current is passed through it. This magnetic field actuates a valve on and off. As these valves are
strictly either on or off they can be operated with a digital on/off output from the myRIO. This raised
a design challenge as the maximum output current/voltage from the digital outputs are 150 mA
and 5 V respectively. The operation current/voltage of the solenoid valve coil is 190 mA at 24 V. A
separate switching circuit was required switch the higher current and voltage on and off as these
exceed the operating parameters of the myRIO. This was achieved by using a simple transistor
switching circuit detailed by the schematic in Figure 64.

DC
5V Digital Input

Figure 64: Circuit diagram for the standard transistor switching circuit
102 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

Figure 65: Initial VI for all switching circuits

The simple circuit seen in Figure 64 can be used for switching any high powered devices and
will also be used in subsequent sections for the motor controller and energy recovery circuitry.
A digital output from the myRIO can be connected to the base pin of the transistor to switch the
solenoid valve on and off, with a simple VI to operate it as seen in Figure 65. To enable the tablet
to operate the solenoid valve, a network shared variable called ‘On Off Switch’ was created in a
variable library within the myRIO. These variables can be called into multiple VIs at the same time
as they are global variables.

7.4.4 Construction and Bench Testing

To prove that the system worked it was necessary to complete bench testing before the final as-
sembly of the locomotive. This enabled the system to be validated and refined before the final
mechanical design freeze and construction. The bench testing was representative of a quarter of
the system, consisting of the vacuum pump, solenoid valve, one actuating cylinder and one reser-
voir. When the digital output from the myRIO is high, the solenoid valve is switched such that
the vacuum pump evacuates the entire system. When this digital output is low, the valve allows
the system to return to atmospheric pressure and the pressure difference from the vacuum on the
reservoir side pulls the actuating rod back. The testing demonstrated that the system worked from
a control point of view, but it raised a few concerning system characteristics:

• Leaks - The constant escape of air from the various joints and connections made the pump
continuously switch on and off. This was reduced by using PTFE on threaded joints and
taping all barb-pipe junctions.
• Pump hunting - The pump continuously switched on and off for very small changes in system
pressure. This could cause excessive wear on the pump so alteration of the internal pressure
switch was conducted to reduce this.

These promising results and control system improvements from a control aspect gave confidence
for the future full system integration.

7.5 Motor Control System MM

Motor control systems are necessary to govern the operation of a motor for a desired input speed.
This was one of the most complex and expensive systems on the locomotive, central to the whole
traction package of the train. The initial steps taken in the design of the system is a review of the
7.5. MOTOR CONTROL SYSTEM 103

impact the rules have on the design requirements, component selection, and construct the required
circuitry around the components.

7.5.1 Design Requirements

As with the braking system, it was necessary to analyse the rules and challenges from the IMechE
Railway Challenge. This influenced the design specifications that have to be adhered to, such as:

• The locomotive must be able to be controlled via radio or cable based transmission: Motor
controller must be able to be operated remotely
• Maximum speed is 15 km/h: Motor control system must incorporate speed feedback with
appropriate algorithms in place to limit speed
• Maximum deceleration rate using energy recovery is 1.3 m/s2 : Motor controller deceleration
rate must be able to be modified. Energy recovery must be possible with motor controller.

These rules gave a set of features and design parameters to begin the component selection. Fur-
ther to these rules, calculations in the Section 4 provided additional parameters to aid the com-
ponent search. A maximum current of 200 A is required at a maximum voltage of 48 V DC. This
reduced the number of controllers greatly as they are not as readily available as 12 or 24 V con-
trollers. There are additional features which were identified early on as being desirable for refining
the locomotive design. One example is acceleration/deceleration ramp control which dictates how
quickly the locomotive accelerates to a desired input speed. This is useful for reducing the chance
of wheel slip under extreme track conditions or trailing load. An option for freewheeling (disableing
regenerative braking) is a desirable feature. This would be used in the energy recovery challenge to
maximise the distance travelled from the amount of energy recovered by freewheeling the motors,
coasting the locomotive when the recovered energy has been consumed.

7.5.2 Component Selection

Using the design requirements highlighted, an initial market search was initiated. This was mostly
web-based but followed a logical workflow, looking at matched controllers for the chosen motors
through the motor suppliers or electric vehicle manufacturers. Three motor controllers were se-
lected: Sigmadrive PMT465L, Alltrax AXE-4844 and the 4QD-300. To decide between them a
binary weighting matrix was used to evaluate the relative importance of each of the design require-
ments. This value, combined with the score of each controller in each of the design requirements
provided a product percentage satisfaction of the design requirements. The score (0-5) is a quali-
tative analysis of each design requirement based on thorough research of each product.
104 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

Remote  Control  Support

Percentage  Weighting
Offset  Product  Score
Acceleration  Ramp
Customer  Support

Controller  Display
Forward/reverse
Energy  Recovery

Fault  detection
Free  Wheeling

Product  Score
Cost
Energy  Recovery X 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 9.09%
Free  Wheeling X 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 4 18.18%
Forward/reverse X 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 9.09%
Cost X 1 1 0 1 0 3 4 18.18%
Customer  Support X 1 0 1 0 2 3 13.64%
Acceleration  Ramp X 0 1 0 1 2 9.09%
Fault  detection X 1 1 2 3 13.64%
Remote  Control  Support X 0 0 1 4.55%
Controller  Display X 0 1 4.55%
Total 22

Product  Score Product  percentage

4QD-­‐300 5 4 5 5 4 3 1 5 0 3.73 74.5%
Sigmadrive  PMT465L 5 5 5 2 4 5 5 4 4 4.23 84.5%
Alltrax  AXE-­‐4844 5 0 0 3 3 4 3 3 5 2.55 50.9%

Binary  Input 1 0
Blank  Cells X

Figure 66: Motor control binary weighting matrix

As can be seen in Figure 66 there are some clear shortfalls in certain controllers. The Alltrax
controller does not have internal reversing functions, it requires external switching circuity hence
it scored zero. The 4QD does not provide a controller display, but as this is classified as a low
percentage importance when compared to other design requirements, it does not impact too much
on the product design requirements satisfaction percentage. The selected motor controller from
the binary weighting matrix is the Sigmadrive PMT465L, where the main positive points are its ad-
justability through a hand held programmer, the fault detection capability and the display. During
the testing phase, the selected motor controller was successfully spinning the motors by using a
0-5 V output from the myRIO until a fault developed limiting the operation of the motor controller.
Due to the point in the project this failure occurred, sourcing another Sigmadrive unit was challeng-
ing due to the remaining time available and the long lead times. The only option was to source
another controller, so analysing the binary weighted matrix again, the 4QD was selected as the
final controller.

7.5.3 System Design

Motor controllers of this size and power capability are usually used on battery operated vehicles.
Virtually all of these vehicles have an operator on board using manual controls to provide inputs to
the motor controller to manipulate the drive of the motors. This raises a challenge when wanting
to control the locomotive remotely and ancillary circuitry needs to be designed and manufactured.
Figure 67 shows the circuitry required to remotely provide inputs to the motor controller, from the
myRIO.
7.5. MOTOR CONTROL SYSTEM 105

Battery  Terminals

B-­‐ B+

1N4148

10<ё 470ё Key  Switch

Digital  Output  (Reverse)

myRIO 100<ё
Contactor  SW-­‐280

0-­‐5V  Analogue  Output  (Throttle)

A B C D

LED
4  Way  Connector

1<ё
B-­‐ B+
10<ё

Controller  Terminals

A B C D E F

6  Way  Connector

Figure 67: Motor control ancillary circuitry

The controller circuit boards contain Insulation Displacement Connectors (IDCs) seen as the 6
way and 4 way connector in Figure 67. These allow control signals, external controller indications
and safety features to be connected. Starting with the 4 way connector, pins A and B operate the
pre-charge resistor contactor bypass. The 470 Ω resistor pre-charges the internal capacitors of
the motor controller before a direct connection to the supercapacitor terminals is created. The key
switch between C and D enables the controller to operate and the contactor to close. Moving to
the 6 way connector, the LED between pins B and F shows the controller is operational and only
displays when the key switch is closed. The transistor state between pins C and F decides whether
the motors spin in forwards or reverse, and pin C is pulled up to battery positive. This transistor
is operated by a digital output from the myRIO, operated in a similar way to the VI illustrated in
Figure 65. The 10 kOmega resistor between pins D and F is a pot defeat resistor, mimicking the
variable resistor in a manual throttle that would be connected to pins D, E and F. This enables pin
E to connected to a 0-5 V output from the myRIO, which acts as the throttle.
As discussed previously, to maximise the distance travelled during the energy recovery chal-
lenge, the regenerative braking feature would be useful to disable. This mode of operation is not
one that is usually used by electric vehicles as it disables a system designed to increase efficiency
by regenerating energy during the braking phase. The motor controllers investigated previously
are all four quadrant controllers, having four modes of operation – drive and regeneration in both
forwards and reverse. Figure 68 shows how quadrant one (Q1) and Q3 accelerate the motor in
forward and reverse and Q2/Q4 decelerate the motor in forward and reverse.
106 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

Figure 68: Illustration of four quadrant motor control operation [97]

With the 4QD, this four quadrant operation can be defeated by completing a simple board mod-
ification. Two contact patches on the top board of the controller were connected to a switch which
disabled or enabled the regenerative braking. This has the impact of disabling quadrants two and
four, creating a two quadrant controller. The torque applied (during regenerative braking) to the ro-
tor in the opposite direction of rotation now is not present. This will enable the locomotive to travel
as far as possible using the energy recovered during the braking phase of the energy recovery
challenge. During normal operation the controller will operate in four quadrant mode as designed.
Reflecting the more complex circuitry in Figure 67, the LabVIEW application required to operate
the circuit grew in complexity as well. To operate the motor controller a 0-5 V analogue output and
a digital output is required. To manipulate the global variables throttle and reverse in Figure 69b the
National Instruments Data Dashboard application was used on a tablet. A simple graphical user
interface (GUI) was generated to manipulate the 0-5 V output seen in Figure 69a. To safely operate
the train, the VI was designed such that the motors and brakes cannot be applied simultaneously.
The throttle input on the tablet ranges from -5 to 5. Forwards operation is from 0 to 5, a dead-band
from 0 to -1 is where the brakes are applied and -1 to -5 is where the locomotive is in reverse.
7.5. MOTOR CONTROL SYSTEM 107

(a) Motor control tablet graphic user inter-

face

(b) Motor control LabVIEW VI

Figure 69: Braking system design

7.5.4 Construction and Testing

Throughout the whole project the emphasis has been on safe operation whilst completing all the
deliverables required from the project hence all components had to be rated to the operating cur-
rent and voltages. This was particularly important when considering the traction package, with
potentially high currents being drawn by the Lynch motors. Heavy gauge cable (70mm2 cross sec-
tional area), a properly rated contactor, emergency switches and fuses were utilised with adequate
terminal protection to prevent accidental shorting. Figure 70 displays how the traction system was
set up for bench testing. Initially the energy source used was a bench power supply, to understand
the controller operation with a controllable power source. Once confidence in the circuitry was
established lead acid batteries were used for all initial bench testing. The supercapacitor was not
initially used due to not being able to charge it with limited voltage bench power supplies.
108 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

Figure 70: Motor control bench testing

During the testing of the motor control system, several points were raised regarding the perfor-
mance of the whole system:

• Contactor not closing in horizontal orientation – The contactor has heavy, large contacting
plates requiring relatively large force to move them. In the vertical position, closing upwards,
the contactor would not close. Rotating the contactor such that it closed towards the ground
reduced the force required to move the plates, allowing the contactor to close.
• Motor speed did not correspond to the 0-5 V input - During testing it was noted that the motors
did not start to spin until the voltage output was around 1.8 V. Modification to the gain setting
on the motor controller overcame this, with linear response in motor speed to input voltage,
cutting in at about 0.48 V.
• Motor kick during initial acceleration – When rotating the motors from a standstill a significant
kick was witnessed before smooth acceleration. This is undesirable as a jerking motion from
the motors could cause excessive chain wear/stretch as well as noise/vibration problems.
Conducting the gain adjustment as before minimised this.
• Imbalanced motor speed – When using the motors in series it was noticed that the rotation
speed did not match up. This is due to the minute differences in the loading applied to the
motor through internal resistance and stiction of the bearings. The difference in the load
leads to an imbalance in the voltage across the motors, causing a speed difference. This is
demonstrated in Figure 70 by the different values displayed on the multimeters on the far right
which are connected to each motor.
• Regenerative brake defeat switch – A noticeable increase in spool down time was witnessed
with the regenerative braking defeat switch applied. At no load, the time from an applied 10 V
to 0 V across the motors increased from two to four seconds.

Moving forward from these successful bench tests of the motor control, the next stage was
to integrate the energy recovery system with the supercapacitor. This was completed by using
the switch mode power supply plugged into a wall outlet to charge the supercapacitor, which then
replaced the lead acid batteries previously used for bench testing. A more detailed analysis of this
is found in Section 7.8.
7.6. ANCILLARY BATTERY SYSTEM 109

7.6 Ancillary Battery System JW

Batteries are used to convert chemical energy directly to useful electrical energy, thus avoiding
the reduction in efficiency of fossil fuel powered electrical generators due to mechanical losses.
Batteries themselves have been used commercially for many years, in many different applications.
However, their use on full scale trains has historically been limited due to the use of primary energy
sources such as coal, and more recently, direct electrical power. This is not the case for minia-
ture locomotives where a large number are powered directly by batteries, as was the case in the
Eurostar Project, see Section 1.3.
The role of the ancillary battery system on the locomotive is to power the 12 V and 24 V electrical
components that are vital in the safe and successful operation of the onboard electrical systems.
The main reasons for not using the 48 V generator to power such components are as follows:

• To ensure full functionality of the microprocessor and control system, and maintain control of
the braking system in the event of a generator or energy recovery failure
• To reduce the load on the generator during normal operation.

It became clear during the design stage that this was in fact a complex and vital subsystem
in the normal operation of the locomotive. The main components to be powered by the ancillary
system and their voltage and maximum current ratings can be found in Table 18, note that the
current draw during normal operation is expected to be less than the stated values.

Rated Rated No. of Estimated

Item
Voltage (V) Current (A) Components Current Drain (A)
Vacuum Pump 12 9 1 9
Solenoid Valve (3 port) 24 0.188 1 0.188
myRIO 12 2.33 1 2.33
Contactor Switch 12 1.08 3 3.24

Table 18: Ancillary battery power requirements

7.6.1 Design Considerations

During the initial design phase of the locomotive, a buffer battery system was going to be used
to supply additional power to the motors during peaks in power requirement such as acceleration
and travelling up inclines. Thus a battery that was able to supply a large power over a short space
of time, multiple times, was required. Upon further research and discussions, the project team
decided that since a supercapacitor was going to be used for energy recovery, this could also be
used to fulfil the purpose of supporting the generator during power peaks. Consequently, the idea
of using a battery system on the locomotive was temporarily disregarded until it became apparent
that many of the smaller electronic components being utilised required a 12 V or 24 V supply.
Since the traction system voltage was 48 V, there was a need for a lower voltage DC power
supply in order for vital components such as the microprocessor and braking system vacuum pump
to work effectively. As previously mentioned, the main reasons for not using the generator to power
these components were to ensure that the train could still be controlled safely in the event of a
generator or supercapacitor failure and to decrease the load on the generator. This resulted in the
decision to use an ancillary battery powered system. In this new system, the emphasis on battery
performance had shifted from a large power over a short time to a lower power of a longer length
110 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

of time. Since both a 12 V and 24 V supply were required; the initial design consisted of using
two 12 V batteries connected in series, where components that required 24 V could be powered by
both batteries and then the other components could be split between the two individual batteries in
an attempt to try and keep the current drain on both batteries equal.

7.6.2 Component Selection

Battery Selection

There has been a large amount of research into the use of batteries as power sources for electric
vehicles. There are multiple battery types that are suitable for vehicle power sources: lead-acid;
nickel-metal hydride (Ni-MH); lithium-ion (Li-ion); metal-air and sodium-nickel chloride [98]. In order
to decide upon the most suitable chemistry type, it was important to first decide upon the criteria
that the batteries must meet.
The first major point to note is that since a higher locomotive mass corresponds to increased
traction, the energy density of the battery was not of concern. In contrast, safe and reliable oper-
ation were paramount. Since the batteries were also not going to be the main source of power on
the locomotive, it was agreed to try and minimise the system cost and circuit design complexity. Ini-
tial research showed that the three most commonly available battery types for consumer purchase
suitable for use on the locomotive were lead-acid; nickel-metal hydride and lithium-ion. The main
performance characteristics are briefly summarised in Table 19.

Battery Technology Characteristics

Popular, low cost,
moderate specific energy,
Lead-Acid
maintenance free designs,
moderate cycle life [99]
Sealed design, maintenance free [99],
high specific power, safety and
lifecycle advantages over Li-ion,
Ni-MH
high price, temperature and SOC
monitoring needed to avoid
deterioration [100]
High specific energy and energy
Li-ion
density [99], high efficiency, high cost [100]

Table 19: Different battery technology characteristics

The chosen battery technology for primary power in the ancillary system was lead-acid. The
lead-acid battery has been the most popular battery technology for over 100 years [99]. They
have also been used for multiple different applications such as electric and hybrid vehicles; energy
storage; emergency power and as a power source for mining and material handling equipment
among others. Due to the high demand and various usage, they are associated with a low price
and ease of manufacture [99]. However, they do have some limitations: they have large space
requirements and have a high mass due to the use of lead [100]. Their performance also greatly
reduces if they are discharged below 30%. In order to avoid this, a simple battery monitoring system
was implemented where the NI myRIO microprocessor was used to monitor battery voltage and
SOC.
The main reasons for not using the higher performance Ni-MH or Li-ion batteries are due to
the more complicated battery management systems that would be required; both of these types of
7.6. ANCILLARY BATTERY SYSTEM 111

batteries would also need temperature management as well as voltage and charge monitoring. For
example, Li-ion batteries suffer from a degradation of performance when discharged below 2 V [99]
and a permanent loss in capacity at temperatures above 65°C. Not to mention the most obvious
disadvantage, their high cost ($600/kWh) [100].
Table 18 highlights the power requirements of the ancillary circuit; there is an estimated max-
imum current draw of 14.8 A split between two batteries. A desired running time of one day (7-
8 hours) requires a battery capacity between 50 and 60 Ah using using Peukert’s Law, Equa-
tion 7.6.1 [101]:

Cp = I k t (7.6.1)

Where Cp is the amp-hour capacity at a 1 A discharge rate; I is the discharge current; t is

the discharge time in hours and k is the Peukert coefficient. The data sheet for the batteries
purchased can be found in Appendix E; these were purchased from the online electrical store, RS
Components. Four batteries were purchased with the idea being that two could be used on the
locomotive whilst the other two were being charged. The four 12 V batteries also enabled the team
to model the 48 V power output of the generator during the bench top testing phase of the project.

Battery Charger

As can be seen in Appendix E, there are recommended charging characteristics in order to max-
imise and maintain the performance of the batteries. Two battery chargers that perform a pre-set
charging algorithm were bought at the same time as the batteries. The reason for choosing to pur-
chase battery chargers rather than design and build ones specifically for the batteries was simply
to ensure that the batteries charge safely. There is scope to improve this feature of the train, as will
be discussed in Section 14.

Battery Monitoring Components

As previously mentioned, the NI myRIO will be used to monitor the voltage and SOC of the batteries
during operation. The myRIO itself does not have the capability to carry out such procedures.
Therefore, two additional pieces of equipment are required, these are:

• Low voltage disconnect - breaks the external circuit when it senses that the battery voltage is
too low
• Current Sensor - By measuring the current, and integrating this value with respect to time
using the myRIO, the SOC of the battery can be estimated.

The integration between the external components and the myRIO will be discussed in Sec-
tion 7.6.5. The low voltage disconnect chosen has an input voltage range between 9 and 32 Vdc
at a continuous maximum current of 20 A. An open loop current sensor was used which consists
of a Hall effect sensor mounted in the air gap of a magnetic core. The current carrying wire that
is surrounded by the sensor produces a magnetic field that is proportional to the current; this field
is measured by the sensor and a corresponding voltage output is supplied [102]. The FW Bell
NA-25 has a rated input current of 7 mA and a sensitivity of 0.9 to 2.5 mV/A, with a linear perfor-
mance relationship up to 100 A. It is expected that the sensor itself will be powered by the myRIO.
This allows the capability to be able to control when the current is being sensed. The low voltage
disconnect and a diagram of the current sensor can be seen in Figures 71a and 71b respectively.
112 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

(a) PowerTector PT20 low voltage discon- (b) Diagram of operation of the Hall effect
nect [103] current sensor [102]

Figure 71: Battery monitoring components

7.6.3 System Design

Two 12 V batteries will be used to power the ancillary circuit; where either one or both of the
batteries can be used depending on whether the rated supply voltage of each component is 12 V
or 24 V. The full 12 and 24 V ancillary circuit can be seen in Figure 72.

Figure 72: Full 12 V ancillary circuit

This circuit will be implemented using two fused distribution boards (one connected to each
battery) so as to simplify the wiring process of final implementation. The most complex part of the
ancillary system will be including the battery monitoring (detailed circuits can be found in Figures 73
and 77) due to the integration of the circuit components with the myRIO. In order to ensure effective
and accurate operation of the battery monitoring system a series of bench top tests were carried
out, detailed in Section 7.6.4.

7.6.4 Testing
Low Voltage Disconnect

Two low voltage disconnect components were used, one in series with each of the batteries. They
are solid state devices that monitor the source voltage and break the circuit when the voltage falls
7.6. ANCILLARY BATTERY SYSTEM 113

below a pre-determined level. The PowerTector low voltage disconnect units used have a range of
pre-programmed voltage cut-off settings that allow for use in a variety of scenarios. The 20 A rated
unit used, as seen in Figure 71a, can be connected inline and does not require chassis mounting.
The circuitry that will be used can be seen in Figure 73.

Figure 73: Low voltage disconnect circuit, the unit is the component marked Z. Note the use of a
voltage divider circuit to allow for myRIO integration.

Before testing the integrated circuit, first the simple voltage divider circuit was used to help
configure the myRIO. Using a breadboard, the circuit was first tested with a power supply input of
12 V to check that the output voltage was under the 5 V maximum that could be read by the myRIO.
This was implemented using a 10 k Ω and a 1 kΩ resistor in series and then measuring the voltage
across the 1 k Ω resistor. The voltage drop across any series resistor can be calculated from the
voltage divider equation, Equation 7.6.2, [104]:

Rn
Vn = Vsupply (7.6.2)
Rtotal
With Vsupply = 12 V and Rtotal = 11 k Ω, the theoretical voltage drop across the 1 k Ω is 1.09̇ V .
The results of the bench top test can be seen in Figure 74. As can be seen the voltmeter reads
1.091 V . The difference between the theoretical value and the measured value is likely due to
both the 5% error of the resistors used in the circuit and the fact that the supply voltage is actually
12 ± 0.05 V .
114 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

(a) Power supply controlled input (b) Output of voltage divider circuit

Figure 74: Voltage divider test circuit

Once confident that the voltage divider circuit was safe to use with the myRIO, the complete
voltage divider circuit could be assembled and integrated. The operation of the circuit and the GUI
of the NI LabVIEW software is relatively simple. A warning light is turned on when the voltage drops
below 11.5 V , and then a second warning light and pop up box are activated when the low voltage
disconnect unit breaks the circuit. This operation can be seen in Figure 75.

(a) First LED lights up when the voltage (b) Second LED lights up when the low volt-
across the battery drops below 11.5 V age disconnect cuts the circuit

Figure 75: User interface of voltage monitoring NI LabVIEW script

The script that runs this programme can be seen in Figure 76. The script was first tested with
just the voltage divider circuit and the power supply to check that there were no irregularities. Once
this step was complete, the low voltage disconnect unit was connected up in series successfully.
7.6. ANCILLARY BATTERY SYSTEM 115

Figure 76: Block diargram script that monitors the battery voltage via the myRIO analogue input

This script allows for the voltage of one cell to be monitored. In order to measure the individual
battery voltages when they are in series with one common ground; one voltage divider circuit must
measure the full 24 V, the other then measures one of the individual batteries. The second battery
voltage can then be found by subtracting the individual voltage from the series connected voltage.
At the time of report hand-in, the voltage monitoring circuit was fully implemented on the lo-
comotive without the low voltage disconnects. It is expected that these will be added before the
IMechE competition date.

Current Sensing

The measurement of current flow out of each of the batteries is vital in order to ensure a long
lifespan of the lead acid batteries. As has previously been discussed, the lifelong performance
of this type of battery deteriorates rapidly when the charge of the battery reduces below 30%.
Therefore it is essential to be able to estimate the state of charge (SOC) of both batteries at all
times. To do this, the current out of each battery will be measured by the Hall effect sensor. This
then sends an output voltage signal that is amplified by an operational amplifier and then read by
the myRIO analogue input.
Using the LabVIEW visual interface block diagram code it is possible to read this voltage and
convert it to the corresponding current value (conversion process detailed later in this section). The
charge consumed can then be found by integrating the current with respect to time, Equation 7.6.3
[105]:
Z t
Q= I dt (7.6.3)
0

Where Q is the electical charge, measured in ampere-seconds (As), I is the discharge current
in amperes (A) and t is the time of discharge in seconds (s). The SOC of the battery can then
simply found by multiplying Q by 3600 to get the electrical charge in units of ampere-hours (Ah)
and subtracting this value from the capacity value of the battery, 55 Ah. The theoretical, and yet to
be finalised, current sensing circuit can be seen in Figure 77.
116 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

Figure 77: The theoretical current sensor circuit; note that it does not include the wire that carries
the current being measured. The current sensor is represented by the symbol ’X’

The current sensor itself and the test circuit can be seen in Figure 78. The dot on the current
sensor signifies the side through which current flow is positive. This ensures the safe, and correct
operation of the sensor.

(a) Close-up of the current sensor being (b) Current sensor circuit measuring the
used as part of the test circuit current through a contactor switch

Figure 78: Implementing the test current sensing circuit

The Hall effect current sensor gives a voltage output which much be converted to the corre-
sponding current value. In order to calibrate the sensor, the test circuit shown in Figure 78 was
used to measure the voltage output of the sensor when measuring the current through two contac-
tor switches; the current was measured using an ammeter. The sensor and operational amplifier
were powered using a 1.5 V battery and a bench-top power supply respectively. The results of this
experiment can be seen in Figure 79. Note that due to the usage limits of the contactor switches,
the current range was limited to between 1 and 1.8 A when connected in series.
7.6. ANCILLARY BATTERY SYSTEM 117

Figure 79: The relationship between the measured current and the voltage output of the Hall effect
current sensor

It can be seen that there is a linear relationship which is expected up to 100 A. The equation of
the trendline in Figure 79, Equation 7.6.4, can now be used to convert the sensor output voltage to
the measured current value. It is true that due to the small current range tested, this equation may
not be a true representation of the real conversion factor at higher current values.

Vout + 0.0231
Imeasured = (7.6.4)
0.2103
Due to uncertainty about the current sensor conversion factor at higher currents and also the
final circuit that will be used, it was not included in the locomotive electronic circuit for the pre-report
hand-in testing. Once an opportunity arises to measure higher currents (up to 20 A) the final circuit
can then be added with the security that it will provide the correct readings, refer to Section 14.

7.6.5 Systems Integration

The next step in the battery monitoring process was to integrate the current sensing and voltage
monitoring visual interface files in LabVIEW. In order to simplify this process, a separate current
sensing programme was not created. Instead, the original voltage monitoring file was adapted to
accommodate the current sensing. The integrated battery monitoring block diagram and front panel
can be seen in Figures 80 and 81 respectively.
118 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

Figure 80: Final block diagram of the integrated battery monitoring system

Figure 81: Final front panel of the integrated battery monitoring system

It can be seen that as well as the safety cut-off of the low voltage disconnect. There is also now
an indicator and on-screen pop up for when the estimated SOC of the battery reaches 30% of its
maximum. One major limitation of this setup is that each time the programme is stopped, the data
resets itself, therefore it will be necessary to log the last known SOC of the battery and then use
this as an input the next time the batteries are used. It is hoped to resolve this problem before the
competition hand in.

7.6.6 Battery Safety Covers HMF

The safety of individuals working in the vicinity of the batteries whilst servicing the locomotive is
a consideration of utmost importance. To ensure safe working conditions the issues outlined in
Section 5.6.5, namely terminal shorting and electrocution risks are considered and risk mitigation
measures taken.
The solution chosen is similar to that taken to protect the user from accidents involving the
7.7. ENERGY RECOVERY SYSTEM 119

supercapacitor terminals (see Section 5.6.5); an ABS 3D printed terminal and cable cover is used.
Though in principle the approach taken is similar, complications arose due to the lack of obvious
attachment points for the cover, and the far more dimensionally complicated structure required
to deal with this. In order to prevent the cover coming loose upon locomotive vibration, a tightly
constrained interference fit is implemented between the battery handles and the handle location
groove on the top surface of the cover, which can be seen in Figure 82a. The interference fit can
be seen in practice in Figures 82b and 82c.
As with the supercapacitor cap in Section 5.6.5 the cable approach direction is standardised
for each terminal so as to grant the ability to design in improved protective cover. The cable can
be seen entering the cover in the bottom left of Figure 82b, in which it can also be seen that due
to the standardised approach very little clearance is required, reducing the risks mentioned above.
In order to ensure stability, even when subject to compressive forces a number of stabilising and
strengthening struts are employed, increasing contact with the battery surface, as can be seen in
Figures 82b and 82c.

(a) Battery cover CAD model (b) Isometric view of terminal cover (c) Side view of battery covers

Figure 82: Battery terminal covers

7.7 Energy Recovery System JW

The main body of text that covers the supercapacitor and its associated circuit can be found in
Section 5.5. This section simply summarises the testing of the supercapacitor in the lab from an
Electronics and Control point of view and also the building of the full energy recovery circuit and its
integration with the rest of the electronics system on the locomotive..

7.7.1 Testing
The main contribution from the Electronics team with regards to the supercapacitor energy recovery
system was to help build and test the simple charge/discharge circuit, provide assistance to modify
the circuit after initial testing and then implement the final circuit on the locomotive.
The initial supercapacitor charge/discharge circuit implemented at the start of testing can be
found in Figure 83. It can be seen that this circuit includes two automated switches that control
when the supercapacitor is charged and discharged.
120 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

Figure 83: The specified supercapacitor charge/discharge circuit

Through gradual changes in the circuit and continuous testing, this circuit was then optimised to
include a soft charge resistor by-pass switch and switches to discharge and to avoid supercapacitor
overcharge. In the final week of testing, the circuit was also integrated with the motor control circuit
before the full circuit build on the locomotive. All of the switches were automatically controlled by
the myRIO and for testing an additional manual discharge switch was added to the final circuit. In
order to automate this circuit, supercapacitor voltage monitoring was implemented using the same
voltage divider circuit as detailed in Section 7.6.4. The switches were then controlled as follows:

• By-pass switch closes at 45 V

• Overcharge switch opens at 47 V
• Discharge switch closes below 1 V and above 46 V.

These values are still to be optimised in order to improve the performance of the locomotive.
The front panel and block diagram for the final test circuit can be seen in Figures 84 and 85.
The final switch circuitry used on the locomotive can be seen in Figure 86.

Figure 84: User interface of the supercapacitor circuit

7.8. SUBSYSTEM INTEGRATION 121

Figure 85: The block diagram that enables the myRIO to be able to control the supercapacitor
circuit

Figure 86: Supercapacitor switches circuit implemented on the locomotive

7.8 Subsystem Integration MM QA

Once each of the subsystems had been designed, constructed and tested separately, the next step
was to integrate them all together. This was the most challenging aspect of the design process as
it required construction and simultaneous control of all subsystems together.

7.8.1 Software integration QA

Having tested all of the subsystems VIs, the software integration involved the construction of one
main VI that controls all of the systems. This was done to create a user friendly interface for an
operator or a driver. Careful consideration was taken to ensure that variables do not override each
other and that the commands of systems do not conflict with. This was done by carefully inspecting
the hardware input and output pins and the type of signals required. Global variables and once the
VI was constructed, it was tested with the integrated hardware. Figure 87 shows the main driver
interface with the main system control variables and indicators.
122 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

Figure 87: Driver interface

7.8.2 Hardware Integration MM

The hardware integration mainly involved the construction and mounting of components in a sys-
tematic and safe fashion. To ease this process a system diagram (seen in Figure 88) was created
to aid the integration of all the subsystems. This details the inputs and outputs connected to the
myRIO which aided the connector pin allocation for full system assembly (seen in Figure 89).

Figure 89: Pin allocation for connecting each subsystem to the myRIO
7.8. SUBSYSTEM INTEGRATION 123

Figure 88: Full electrical system block diagram

124 CHAPTER 7. ELECTRONICS AND CONTROL

The mounting of components and routing of cable throughout the system proved a challenge
but suitable measures were put in place to minimise the risk of component damage. Trunking was
utilised to protect thinner gauge cable from damage through rubbing on shelves or environmental
exposure. ABS boxes were used to mount and protect constructed PCBs for the voltage, current,
temperature and Hall effect sensors alongside ancillary motor control circuitry and the motor con-
troller. Quick connectors were used to aid modular component removal including molex connectors
and crimps. Subsystems were grouped together to minimise cable runs, primarily the thinner gauge
control wire between the myRIO and subsystems on the rear shelves (the left of Figure 90). The
myRIO was at the rear of the train to reduce the distance to the wireless control device. The batter-
ies, brake system and switch mode power supply was located at the front of the train. Components
were distributed to keep the centre of mass as low and even across the bogies. Components
were secured with locking bolts or Velcro depending on the item weight and vibration isolation was
achieved with foam and rubber isolating feet. The generator and resistors were grouped in the
centre where more intensive cooling can be utilised.

Figure 90: Integration of subsystems on partially disassembled skeleton frame

8. Bogie Design
8.1 Introduction MD
Bogies are understood to be the “arrangement that contains the wheelsets and are connected to
the wagon body/frame” [106], where a wheelset refers to the ensemble of two wheels and the axle
connecting them. This definition describes the bare minimum function of a bogie; in reality, bogies
generally also include suspension systems, motors, drivetrain, and brakes.
Early railways used two fixed axles per wagon; however, like any kind of vehicle with a rigid
wheelbase, this poses problems in curves. Bogies were introduced on railways in the first half of
the 19th century, and are today commonplace on all railways. The most common bogie design uses
two axles per bogie, and two bogies at either end of the carriage. Some exceptions to this exist,
such as the French TGV which has two-axle bogies situated between two carriages, or the Spanish
Talgo which uses single-axle bogies, also situated between two carriages [107].

(a) University of Birmingham locomotive (b) Manchester Metropolitan University lo-

2013 [108] comotive 2012 [109]

Figure 91: Previous fixed-wheel Railway Challenge designs

However, the fact that bogies are almost universally used in full-size modern railways does
not necessarily dictate the design decision for a prototype miniature locomotive design, as proven
by previous IMechE Railway Challenge designs, two of which are shown in Figure 91. However,
the fact that bogies are so universal is useful when making other decisions, as there is literature
and previous designs available for locomotive design on full-size trains which does not exist for
miniature locomotives. The decision to use bogies has several other reasons, explained in more
depth below.
The first advantage is in turning; a locomotive design with bogies can handle much tighter
corners since the axles can be fairly close to each other. Initial estimates for the length of the
locomotive were over 2.5 m, which would lead to a concerning distance between axles. Though
there are ways to allow lateral movement of axles, such as the Gölsdorf axle or the Klien-Lindner
axle [110], these methods were used on steam engines and are antiquated, and are mechanically
more complex than bogies.
Secondly, a locomotive design with bogies enables better group workflow. Without bogies,
all decisions regarding wheelsets, suspension, brakes, motors, and drivetrain would have had to
be made with more compromises. Using bogies assures that an ideal environment for all these
components is met.

125
126 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

Lastly, this design choice was made with future years in mind. If the locomotive frame needs
to be made wider or slimmer, longer or shorter, the bogies can remain unchanged. If the compo-
nents on the frame are heavier or lighter, only the suspension needs to be changed. The modular
approach of using bogies will hopefully prove extremely beneficial to future teams.
The downside of this choice is quite simply a more complex overall design, which requires more
parts and has more potential sources of failure.

8.2 Bogie Frame MD

Since the choice has been made to go with two bogies with two axles each, calculations are
required to determine the limitations on the size of each individual bogie. While bogie designs
where the axles can move independently of one another exist, these are quite involved and require
some mechanisms to allow movement of the axle, which are not trivial to design or manufacture.
For simplicity’s sake, the team opted for axles which are fixed with respect to each other, meaning
the axles and wheels are fixed in all dimensions with respect to each other. The effect of suspension
will be ignored in this instance as it mainly acts in the vertical direction.
The main issue with having two axles which cannot move independently of one another arises
in corners. If wheelsets and bogies are not well designed, this can lead to excessive vibration due
to unnecessary rail-wheel friction, and in the worst cases derailment can occur. There are two
specifications given by the IMechE which are of particular importance in these calculations [15]:

• Gauge: 10¼ inches (between rail inner faces). May widen to 10½ on curves.
• Minimum horizontal curvature radius: 20 m.

Using this data, a Python script was written to geometrically determine the maximum allowable
distance between the axles in each bogie. The exact explanation will not be given here; however,
the Python script can be found in its entirety in Appendix J The distance between bogies is of
no concern here since each bogie can swivel independently. There are two factors which may
become problematic depending on the curvature radius and bogie size. The first is that the tread
of the wheel must stay on the track at all times; the second is that the wheel flange should not be
rubbing against the inside of the rail.
An initial estimate of 800 mm was made for the total length of the bogie. Since the axles are
fully contained within the bogie, a good first estimate for the distance between axles is 500 mm.
A graphic of this arrangement can be seen on the following page. The view is as seen from
above, at the level of the rail. The two arcs are the rail inner faces, with the centerline between
the two as a dotted line. The flange is represented by a rectangle, as this is the shape of the
cross-section of the flange at the height of the rail. The tread is represented by a line, as in theory
the contact area between a cylinder and a plane (i.e. the wheel tread and the rail) is a straight line.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the wheels are “pressed” up against the outer rail, meaning
there is contact between the flange and the rail. In practice, this should be avoided, but it makes
spotting whether the setup is allowable easier on the inner rail.
In Figure 92, it can be seen that there is a gap between the flange and the rail on the inner rail,
meaning that the setup described above is feasible. Using this geometric method, the program can
be made to run multiple times to determine the maximum allowable distance between axles. The
result of this evaluation is that the maximum allowable space between axles in a bogie is 1.78 m.
This is much larger than the intial concepts, and a bogie of these dimensions will not be used.
8.2. BOGIE FRAME 127

Figure 92: Graphical analysis of wheels and flanges in a 20 m bend radius turn

Therefore, it can be concluded that this particular geometric requirement will not pose a problem to
the bogie design.
These calculations have all assumed a gauge of 10¼"; if the track widens to 10½", the maximum
allowable distance between axles is 5.46 m.

8.2.1 Bogie Frame FEA

To validate the bogie frame, finite element analysis (FEA) was performed. Since brakes and brake
placement were decided fairly late, the first set of FEA only investigates the basic ladder frame
with the frame-bogie interface. The axleboxes are assumed to be fixed, and the force acts on the
bogie through the bearing. Three test runs were performed: vertical loading in both directions (i.e.
weight of frame on the bearing at rest and weight of bogies when being lifted) as well as once in the
horizontal direction (i.e. during acceleration or deceleration). Only static loading in the downwards
vertical direction is shown here (see Figure 93), as this was the heaviest load of the three tests.

8.2.2 Bogie Frame Connectors

In Section 8.2.1, one of the assumptions that was made during FEA was that the beams are
all rigidly connected to one another. However, in reality, it is not this simple. For the various
connections between beams, a combination of gussets and connection screws was used. There
are three main loading cases which need to be considered: vertical loading on the central beam,
horizontal loading on the central beam, and horizontal loading on the end beams against which the
brake callipers will be reacting.

Vertical Loading on Central Beam

Vertical loading on the central beam occurs during all aspects of operation. During normal opera-
tion, the weight of the locomotive rests on the central bogie beam, leading to downwards vertical
loading, and during jacking or lifting the weight of the bogie is suspended from this beam, leading
to upwards vertical loading.
A rough estimate leads to each bogie weighing roughly 90 kg and the total weight above the
bogies being around 230 kg. This means each bogie carries a load of 115 kg. In addition, this
assumes perfectly balanced weight distribution, which will prove very difficult; in reality, one bogie
will likely need to bear a higher load. For the sake of this calculation, a value of 150 kg can be
used. Since the frame is symmetrical, if this higher value is withstood by the connectors, the lower
128 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

(a) FEA setup for downwards loading

(b) von Mises stress distribution plot

(c) Displacement plot

Figure 93: FEA under downwards loading

8.2. BOGIE FRAME 129

weight in the opposite direction will also be allowable.

Since gussets are not rated in this direction, connection screws will need to be used. These
can each carry a force of 1300 N, meaning that just two of them can easily carry the maximum load
of 150 kg. Since a double height beam is used and four screws will be used, this is not a concern.
Each screw can also withstand a maximum moment of 80 Nm. Since the beam is rigidly supported
at both ends, the maximum bending moment of the beam is as follows [37]:

WL
BM = (8.2.1)
8

In this case, the load is 150 kg multiplied by 9.8 m/s2 , and L is 0.3562 m. Therefore, the maxi-
mum bending moment is 65.5 Nm. As previously mentioned, each screw can withstand a bending
moment of 80 Nm, so four screws can withstand a bending moment of 320 Nm, giving a factor of
safety of 4.9.

Horizontal Loading on Central Beam

The horizontal loading on the central beam is due to either maximum acceleration or maximum
braking. The maximum deceleration from braking is specified by the IMechE as 1.3 m/s2 [15]; the
maximum acceleration envisaged is 2.0 m/s2 . Therefore, only the maximum acceleration will be
investigated since the frame setup is symmetrical.

X
Ftrailing max = 600 × 10 sin 2.86 + 60 × 2.0 = 1499.37...N ≈ 1500 N. (8.2.2)

Equation 8.2.2 shows the sum of the forces due to both acceleration and against gravity when
going up an incline. Again, the bending moment equation is as follows [37]:

WL
BM = (8.2.3)
8

Using Equation 8.2.3 and a length of 0.3562 m, the maximum bending moment on the beam is
66.8 Nm. The maximum allowable bending moment, using the already existing connection screws
from the vertical loading, again is 320 Nm since four 80 Nm screws are used. This results in a
factor of safety of 4.8.

Horizontal Loading on End Beams

The callipers are attached to the end beams, meaning there is a reaction force going through these
beams during braking.

X
Ftrailing max = 600 × 10 sin 2.86 + 600 × 1.3 = 780 N (8.2.4)

This braking force is shared by four callipers, meaning a force of roughly 200 N is applied to each
beam. The length of these beams is also 0.3562 m, leading to a maximum bending moment of
under 9 Nm. Since this force is applied in the horizontal direction and the bending moment is
low, gussets can be used since they are rated in this direction. Each gusset is rated to 60 Nm in
compression and 160 Nm in tension, and since two are used, even during compression there is a
factor of safety of 13.5.
130 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

8.3 Frame-Bogie Bearing MD

8.3.1 Bearing Requirements

The interface between the locomotive frame and the bogie frame needs to fulfil multiple require-
ments. Firstly, the bogie must be able to swivel freely under the locomotive, which is absolutely
crucial for going around corners. Next, the bearing must support the vertical load of the frame
and all other subsystems mounted on the frame, including the generator, shell, supercapacitor,
and batteries. The bearing should also be able to support the weight of the bogies in the opposite
direction, such that the locomotive can be jacked or lifted by the frame, with the bogies hanging
freely underneath. The next requirement is that the bearing must support forces in the horizontal
direction, since acceleration and deceleration originate in the wheels and the forces due to these
accelerations must be transmitted to the frame and the rest of the locomotive.
Furthermore, the interface between the frame and the bogie should be as small in the vertical
direction (i.e. flat) as possible, as this increases stability by keeping the centre of gravity of the
frame and the subsystems on it as low as possible, and avoids roll of the frame with respect to
the bogies. Moreover, ideally, the chosen bearing should include a housing which can directly be
mounted to the bogie frame and locomotive frame. This avoids having to design a housing which
needs to be manufactured, consuming additional time and money. However, if this is not possible,
a bearing adapter will be designed.

8.3.2 Final Bearing Choice

After looking into various types of bearings, including plain bearings, ball bearings, thrust bearings,
flanged bearings, and ball and socket bearings, it was found that turntable bearings are ideal for this
particular use. Turntable bearings are bearings with flanges, similar to flanged bearings, but are
flatter and generally less bulky. However, they also provide less load-bearing ability than flanged
bearings. The advantage of turntable bearings is that they do not require machining of a shaft.
Since a turntable bearing was found to fulfil the load requirement, these were deemed to be ideal,
since they are flat and easy to mount.

8.4 Axle Properties CM

In determining suitable axle properties, potential failure mechanisms should be identified and inves-
tigated to produce quantitative data from which an appropriate design can be modelled. The axle,
in service, will experience static loads, dynamic loads, braking forces, and sudden fluctuations in
forces (jerks), to name a few. If inadequate properties are selected, the axle will exhibit excessive
bending, twisting, and other deformation that could lead to unexpected failure in service. In the
long run, this can also create issues with fatigue and corrosion that would lead to cost implications
in designing and manufacturing replacement parts. Some of the mechanisms for the above failures
are explored below.

8.4.1 Bending Resistance

The loading on a single axle, along with the reaction forces, can be represented as shown in
Figure 94a. K represents the component of sprung weight that can be said to act at the shown
location.
Assuming two bogies are used, each containing two axles, eight loading points exist. Using a
8.4. AXLE PROPERTIES 131

1.3Mg
dynamic factor of 1.3, as specified in the technical guidance document [15], K = , where M
8
is the sprung mass of the locomotive, and g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81m/s2 ).
Due to axle symmetry, FR1 = FR2 = K . The bending moment can be calculated using Macaulay’s
method by taking moments about the cut face as displayed in Figure 94b.

(b) To calculate bending moment Macaulay’s

(a) Free-body diagram showing the load on the axle method was used andn moments taken about the
and the reaction forces provided by the wheels cut face

Figure 94: A preliminary wheelset setup that can be used to determine requirements

BM + K [x − 0.05] + K [x − 0.417] = K [x − 0.1] + K [x − 0.367] (8.4.1)

Assuming the cross-sectional area of the axle stays symmetrical about both axes, the following
expression for the bending moment (BM) can be used [111]:

d 2ν
BM = −EI (8.4.2)
dx 2
Substituting this (Equation 8.4.2) into the previous expression (Equation 8.4.1) and integrating
twice, before evaluating the constants of integration based on no deflection at points of reactions
(ν = 0 at x = 0.1m and ν = 0 at x = 0.367m) leads to Equation 8.4.3. This is also plotted in Fig-
ure 95.
EIν h i
= −0.2657 [x − 0.05]3 + [x − 0.417]3 − [x − 0.1]3 − [x − 0.367]3 − 0.04755x + 0.00463
M
(8.4.3)
132 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

Figure 95: Deformation of the axle and outlining the points of maximum and minimum deflection

Using
 νthe output function of the Python script used to plot Figure 95, the corresponding value to
EIν maximum
can be determined through finding the difference in deflection between the centre
M νminimum
point of the axle and one of the end points. This is equal to 1.94 × 10−3 . From this, an expression
for the maximum change in deflection of the axle under loading can be calculated as a function of
the Young’s Modulus of the material, sprung mass of the locomotive, and axle diameter. Evaluating
this and inputting known expressions [112] yields the result in Equation 8.4.6. For simplification,
the sprung mass can be estimated to be 750 kg, and a plot that shows how deflection varies with
Young’s Modulus and axle diameter can be constructed, as shown in Figure 96.

 νmaximum
EIν
= 1.94 × 10−3 (8.4.4)
M νminimum

πr 4 πd 4
I= = (8.4.5)
4 64

64M 1.94 × 10−3

δν = νmaximum − νminimum = (8.4.6)
πEd 4
8.4. AXLE PROPERTIES 133

Figure 96: Young’s Modulus of the axle as a function of the axle diameter and sprung mass

Ideally, the differences in deflections should remain at a fraction of a millimetre, and so a com-
bination of a small diameter axle and low value of Young’s Modulus should be avoided. A scenario
where one of either the Young’s Modulus or axle diameter being small is sometimes permissible,
provided the other is increased in value to compensate. If this approach is used, it is more cost
effective and more beneficial practically to have a combination of a high stiffness material with a
lower diameter than a large diameter of axle constructed from a low stiffness material [113].

8.4.2 Torsion Resistance

The regulations state that the minimum diameter for the axle should be 37.8 mm [114]. From the
previous subsection, this has been shown to be a sufficient diameter to enable the locomotive to
easily cope with bending due to loading, as the majority of, if not all, metallic materials that can be
used in construction of the axle exceed the largest value of Young’s Modulus used in Figure 96,
which produces adequate bending resistance.
This does not mean the minimum axle diameter is sufficient however, as torsion should also be
considered.
The torsion equation can be written as [115]:

T τ Gθ
= = (8.4.7)
JT r L
πd 4
If the axle is modelled as a solid shaft, the torsional constant, JT , can be evaluated to
[115].
32
From the torsion equation, two conditions must be evaluated to determine the minimum axle
diameter - one involving the acceptable angle of twist, θ, of the axle; and the other involving the
maximum shear stress before failure, τmax . The minimum acceptable diameter to resist torsion
value will be the maximum diameter value obtained through the analysis of the two conditions.
The Lynch motor being used is quoted to produce 48 Nm of torque by the manufacturer [116].
The torque experienced by the axle depends on the gear ratio that is used. Using the 5:1 gear ratio
figure, as calculated in Section 4.6, with a factor of safety of 1.3 applied to the torque experienced,
134 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

the value of torque at the axle is 312 Nm. As the motor is powering two axles, the actual maximum
torque (and the value used in the analysis) will be half this stated value: 156 Nm.
A Python script was created that housed a dictionary of material properties (those required in
solving the torsion Equation 8.4.7 for the two conditions), and the maximum torque and axle length
(0.51m) that would be used in practice. As the sprockets have not been positioned on the axle, the
full axle length was chosen as opposed to the larger of the two sprocket to end of axle distances.
The material properties required have been sourced from matweb.com [117].
There exists no maximum angle of twist value, however, a fraction of a degree seemed to be
appropriate to set as an upper limit. This decision allowed the axle not to be overspecified, but,
more importantly, will not lead to complete catastrophic failure in service.
Once the script was run, it solves to find the minimum diameter requirement for both conditions
(twist and shear) as outlined in Equation 8.4.7 and prints the larger of the two. If the larger of the
two is below the minimum axle diameter, then the minimum axle diameter is printed, as shown in
Figure 97.

Figure 97: Minimum axle diameters based off torsion analysis

These diameters are greater than the minimum, and thus show that torsion is more of a problem
in this application than bending.

8.4.3 Other Considerations

Other considerations that should be taken into account before choosing axle properties include
fatigue resistance, corrosion resistance, and cost. For the latter, conventional materials should be
used as opposed to exotic compounds as conventional materials are more than suitable for this
application and exotic or extensively engineered materials would produce no noticeable benefits
and would only have significant cost implications [118].
For corrosion, rain water can act as an electrolyte, causing galvanic corrosion. This means
metal compatibility with the wheel material (specified to be EN8 by the regulations [114]) needs to
be considered [119]. The effect of galvanic corrosion can be reduced by using a metal that has a
similar electrode potential to that of the wheel. Another consideration is rusting. This would require
appropriate measures, such as applying coatings (galvanising as an example) or painting, to be
applied to the material to allow for a greater lifespan of the part [120].
8.5. WHEEL SIZE 135

Out of the remaining factors, fatigue is probably the biggest concern. Due to the axle having to
be machined, and it being a crucial part of the drivetrain, frequent replacement or inspections of
the part can prove costly and impractical, thus having good fatigue resistance is important.
It is well known that fatigue life can be drastically improved through simple design improve-
ments [121]. Some common methods include the absence of sharp edges (applying fillets), which
reduces stress concentration at edges; continuous, constant cross-section that aims to reduce
stress concentrations; and having a smooth surface finish, which reduces the chance of leaving
behind residual tensile stresses that would impact fatigue life.

8.4.4 Final Properties and Design

The final axle is constructed from EN8 steel due to its inexpensive nature and its ability to more
than adequately meet in-service requirements whilst keeping the axle diameter small (Figure 97),
allowing for a more compact design of the bogie. It also eliminates the threat of galvanic corrosion.
The axle diameter varies to three different sizes. This allows for easier confinement of parts to
certain areas of the axle. The central part has a diameter of 50 mm, on which the sprocket and
brake disc will sit. The wheels sit on a 40 mm diameter part of the axle, and are held in place by
both circlips (stopping excessive lateral motion of wheels) and a male-female keyway arrangement
(eunsuring the wheel turns with the axle) between the wheel and the axle. The final diameter is
35 mm on the outer side of the axle. This is where the plummer block bearings will sit. These, like
the wheels, will be constrained laterally through the use of circlips.
As the exact positioning of the sprockets and brake disc, along with their dimensions, were not
decided at the time of axle manufacture, a series of grooves for circlips have been cut along the
axle. Four keyway slots have also been designed in to allow for smaller maximum stress on the
brake disc under sudden braking.
The final axle design can be seen in Appendix F as drawing number P21-BOG-WHL-002.

8.5 Wheel Size CM

In a scenario where direct drive is used, the maximum tractive effort increases as the wheel diame-
ter decreases [122]. In other words, smaller wheels give a slower top speed and maximum tractive
effort, whilst larger wheels give a higher top speed, but smaller tractive effort. This is important as
we want the best acceleration (best tractive effort), whilst still achieving the 15 km/h required by the
rules [123], and not causing wheel spin.
Tractive effort is defined as the sum of the tractive force and the rolling resistance, as shown
in Equation 8.5.4. Tractive force and rolling resistance each have their own equation as shown
below [124] [125].
Tractive Effort = Tractive Force + Rolling Resistance (8.5.1)

2ηP N ηP N
Tractive Force = = (8.5.2)
ωd u

Rolling Resistance = µFR (8.5.3)

ηP N
Tractive Effort = + µFR (8.5.4)
u
Maximum tractive force that can be applied is limited by the maximum adhesive force between
the wheel and the rail. Any force higher will cause excessive wheel spin, and so power is being
136 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

wasted. Using the theory of contact mechanics [126], the maximum adhesive force between the
rail and the wheel is given by [127]:
Fadh = 2aνE ∗ (8.5.5)
√
...with νtrack related to the track deflection under loading, a = r νtrack , and E ∗ equating to:

−1
1 − p12 1 − p22

∗
E = +
E1 E2
Subscripts ‘1’ and ‘2’ refer to the wheel and the track respectively.
AE2
The deflection of the track can be found through FR = κνtrack , with κ = , where A refers to
L
the cross-sectional area of the track, and L being the distance between fixed points on the track
(sleepers).
As when analysing axle deformation, the reaction force at each wheel should be taken as FR =
1.3Mg
.
8
Combining the equation describing track adhesion (Equation 8.5.5) and the equation describing
traction (Equation 8.5.4), and substituting in the various expressions listed above, before rearrang-
ing for radius, yields:

" #2
(8AE2 )1.5 1 − p12 1 − p22
 
ηP N 1.3Mgµ
r= · + + (8.5.6)
2 (1.3MgL)1.5 u 8 E1 E2

Using the simple relation of diameter, d, being twice radius, r , the above equation evaluates to:

"√  1.5  # 2
1 − p12 1 − p22

2 8AE2 ηP N 1.3Mgµ
d= + + (8.5.7)
2 1.3MgL u 8 E1 E2

Typical values for each parameter can be seen as those displayed in the table below (quantities
can be taken to be assumed, measured, calculated, or taken from matweb.com):

Property Name Symbol Value Units

Track Cross-Sectional Area A 0.00021 m2

Young’s Modulus of Wheel E1 190 × 109 Pa
Young’s Modulus of Rail E2 205 × 109 Pa
Poisson’s Ratio of Wheel p1 0.305 -
Poisson’s Ratio of Rail p2 0.29 -
Gravitational Acceleration g 9.81 m/s2

Rail Length L 0.35 m

Powertrain Efficiency ηP 0.85 -
Power from Motor N 16000 W
Forward Velocity u 4.17 m/s

Coefficient of Friction µ 0.5 -

Mass M Independent Variable Kg
Wheel Diameter d Dependent Variable m

Table 20: Typical values for each parameter that appear in Equation 8.5.7.

Equation 8.5.7 can now be plotted using values outlined in the above table (Figure 98).
8.5. WHEEL SIZE 137

Figure 98: Required minimum wheel diameter to eliminate wheel spin for different masses

Figure 99: Required minimum wheel diameter to eliminate wheel spin for different masses and
differing power outputs

Unfortunately, for a power output of 16 kW, the locomotive would have to incorporate a large
diameter wheel at the target locomotive mass of 750 Kg. This is undesirable, as it means large
amounts of energy need to be expended to move the locomotive, compromising the energy recov-
ery and energy efficiency challenge. Fortunately, the motor can be modified to reduce the power
output, or simultaneously drive two axles, halving the power transmitted to each axle. This means
it would be relevant to see what the ideal wheel diameter would be as a function of both locomotive
mass and power output. This is shown in Figure 99.
It can be seen from Figure 99 that it would be desirable to avoid the scenario (from a traction
138 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

point of view) of a light locomotive with a large amount of power. By reducing the power output to
half its maximum output, a more reasonable value of wheel diameter can be chosen. This is shown
in Figure 100. This can be achieved by the motor driving two wheelsets simultaneously.
The most likely running configuration is having the motor drive each wheelset at 8 kW and a
locomotive mass of around 750 kg. From Figure 100, it would seem the appropriate wheel diameter
would be around 250 mm for this scenario.
Other than the wheel diameter, bore diameter (dictated by axle diameter), and addition of light-
ening holes, the wheel profile has to comply with the drawing specified by the IMechE Railway
Challenge Technical Specification [114]. Thus, detailing, material, and finishing of the wheels are
predetermined. The drawing submitted to the EDMC for manufacture can be viewed in Appendix
Section F as P21-BOG-WHL-001.

Figure 100: Required minimum wheel diameter to eliminate wheel spin for different masses at a
power output of 8 kW

8.6 Wheelset to Bogie Frame Coupling CM

One important requirement for the coupling is to reduce longitudinal motion between the wheelsets
and the bogie frame. If longitudinal relative motion was not constrained, any braking or accel-
erations would not be transferred through to the rest of the locomotive adequately. Without this
constraint, the braking and acceleration loads would have to be transferred by the sprocket chain
and the springs. As the sprocket chain cannot transfer load when slack, under braking, the loco-
motive would likely run over its own wheelsets if the longitudinal relative motion is not constrained,
thus, it is very important that this motion is eliminated or minimised to acceptable limits.
Another important requirement when considering the wheelset-frame coupling, is the ability for
the wheels to be raised when the frame or bogies are jacked up. Together with the first requirement,
the coupling must be able to withstand the stresses it experiences under these loads. In order to
specify the coupling adequately, these stresses must first be calculated.
8.6. WHEELSET TO BOGIE FRAME COUPLING 139

8.6.1 Coupling Positioning

One decision that can be made before analysis, however, is where the coupling fits onto the bogie.
As one of the IMechE Railway Challenge events requires the quick removal and replacement of a
wheelset, the positioning of the coupling is important. One of the most convenient places to have
it placed is on the outer side of the suspension or axle. This also allows for multiple couplings per
side of the wheelset, allowing the stress to be distributed over a greater number of components,
reducing the risks of catastrophic failure on a single component.
Another alternative position includes the axle, where there are multiple spaces that could fit a
coupling that could be suitable for the application, however, rotary motion of the axle would have
to be tackled, possibly through the use of a bearing on which a coupler is mounted. This coupler
would be difficult to access and check during maintenance, and would be more dangerous and
complicated to replace.
Based on the above qualitative reasoning, it seems the best positioning for any coupling be-
tween the wheelset and bogie frame is on the outside of the suspension and wheels.

8.6.2 Wheelset Loading

Due to the critical nature of this component, the absolute worst case scenario will be calculated.
It would be sensible to assume the locomotive can decelerate faster than it can accelerate, thus
the load and translated stresses of a 2 tonne train carrying a trailing load of 400 kg, travelling up a
slope with the maximum gradient incline (5% = 2.48◦ ) [128], on any coupling will be calculated. A
dynamic loading factor of 1.3 will be included [123].
Further to this, the static load experienced perpendicular to this longitudinal braking load due to
the jacking of the wheelset will also be calculated and analysed. It should be noted that in reality,
these loads will never be experienced simultaneously, but a simultaneous case will be analysed to
completely ensure safety.
It is important to note that when resolved, these forces are perpendicular to each other (i.e.
braking load acts perpendicular to the normal reaction force, which acts parallel but in the opposite
direction to the wheelset weight when jacked).
The technical documentation specifies the maximum permitted deceleration rate (including tol-
erance) is 1.45 m/s2 [123]. Using the maximum permitted mass of the locomotive along with the
trailing load, the maximum dynamic load that will be experienced by the couplers in the direction of
travel under braking on a 5 % incline is:

FMAX = 1.3 × (2400g sin (2.48) + 2400 (1.45)) = 5.9 kN (2s.f .) (8.6.1)

For simplicity, and to account for any aerodynamic drag and dynamic friction forces (taken to
be very small compared to component of weight down the slope and the maximum braking force
itself), the maximum longitudinal force can be taken to be 6 kN. As there are four wheelsets, the
maximum force for the number of couplers on a single wheelset is 1.5 kN. This translates to 0.75 kN
on each side of the wheelset.
During jacking, the vertical load on the couplers on each wheelset is simply the weight of the
wheelset itself. The regulations state the maximum wheelset load is 500 kg [123], and so the
wheelset weight can be taken as near enough 5 kN. With a 50:50 distribution on each side of a
wheelset, the vertical load on each side of the wheelset can be taken to be 2.5 kN.
140 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

8.6.3 Coupling Options

As previously mentioned, it is only desirable to constrain longitudinal motion, and allow vertical
motion to remain as a degree of freedom. The latter motion needs to remain unconstrained to
not compromise the suspension travel. As such, it becomes clear a form of slider mechanism is
desirable. Fortunately, there exist various refined ‘off the shelf’ mechanisms that are capable of
replicating the desired motion.
Two of the most common and refined solutions are linear motion guides, and linear motion
telescopic slides. The working principle of both is very similar. Unfortunately, the design space is
small. Flat mounting points on the ends of the wheelset are limited. The only feasible region is on
the suspension adapter sides, which measures a maximum height (l1 or l4 in Figure 101) of 25 mm.

Figure 101: Highest specification linear motion guide that would fit in the design space [129]

The largest linear motion guide that would fit in the design space is shown in Figure 101. As-
suming four wheelsets that are somewhat symmetrical, the maximum moment due to braking can
be estimated to be the braking force supplied by one wheelset multiplied by half the track gauge.
This equates to roughly 110 Nm. This is almost 20 times the maximum moment the linear motion
guide is rated to, and so would be unacceptable to use this as a solution. Using a large number
in series would be impractical, and any misalignment with one linear motion guide would cause
problems for all the others. These factors require a custom design needs to be developed.
After consulting with other team members, it was decided a metal plate bolted onto the bogie
frame with a cut-out for a pin constricted to the wheelset to slide into would be a suitable solution.
A visual representation of this system is shown in Figure 102.

Figure 102: Implemented version of the custom designed coupling designed to eliminate longitudi-
nal relative motion

The key features of note include the fixing of the plate to the frame, the slot restricting wheelset
motion so no relative longitudinal motion can occur, and the number of plates per side (four plates
8.6. WHEELSET TO BOGIE FRAME COUPLING 141

per wheelset, two per side) to allow for stress to be distributed over a greater number of pins. The
pin on the upper suspension adapter is not strictly necessary - the load can be transferred to the
top bolts on the extruded aluminium. Its primary purpose is to keep the suspension adapters lined
up with each other. The final job before manufacturing the coupling is determining its dimensions,
along with the dimensions of the pin.

8.6.4 Analysis and Dimensioning

Note: The coordinate system and direction notation that is used is defined and consistent with that
in Figure 102.
The coupling mechanism can be modelled to be a cantilever beam, as shown in Figure 103.
The pins and bolt attachment locations can be seen as either points of loading or points of reaction
forces. Under braking, the force would be transmitted through the wheelset and into the coupler
through the bottom pin. As there exist four couplers per wheelset, and having concluded from Sec-
tion 8.6.2 that the maximum braking force that can be applied is 1.5 kN per wheelset, Fb translates
to 375 N.

Figure 103: Coupler modelled as a cantilever beam

The distance between the two reaction forces is 0.035 m, and the distance between R2 and Fb
is 0.079 m. Performing similar analysis as in Section 8.4.1 yields R1 = 1066 N; R2 = 691 N and
M = 8.0625 Nm.
Using the intermediate bending moment equation (not listed), it can be seen the maximum
bending moment magnitude occurs at the location of the upper pin (location of R1 ). The magnitude
of the maximum bending moment at this location (y = 0.035 m is 16.2 Nm). From this, the di-
mensions of the plate cross-section can be determined using the symmetrical cross-section stress
equation (Equation 8.6.2 [111]).

Mx,max zmax
σy,max = (8.6.2)
Ixx

tb3
Ixx = (8.6.3)
12
The thickness, t, of the coupler plate (Figure 103) should be something that can be readily pur-
chased. If it is assumed the plate would be made from aluminium to be consistent with surrounding
metals, and the worst case yield stress is used (σy,max = 15 MPa [130], even though in reality
a quality grade of aluminium will exhibit a yield strength of greater than 200 MPa [131]), dimen-
sion b can be solved for (Equation 8.6.4) through combining and rearranging Equations 8.6.2 and
142 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

8.6.3 [115], whilst noting zmax = b/2.

 1/2
6Mx,max
b= (8.6.4)
tσy,max
Using a plate thickness of 10 mm, the minimum length b works out to be 0.02 m. The analysis
has been simplified, however, and does not account for the weakening of the plate due to having
a slot cut out. As such, a safety factor of 2 will be applied on the the plate cross-section length, b,
resulting in it being 40 mm. If an alternative material is used, the thickness of the plate that would
be required can be found through Equation 8.6.5 [132].
s
YSAl
tmat ≥ tAl (8.6.5)
YSmat

As the yield strengths of strengthened aluminium and mild steel are very similar, the materials
can be interchanged based on cost grounds with negligible effect on dimensions of the cross-
section.
The next step is to dimension the pins. The load due to braking has already been calculated for
both pins, and it is assumed that this is evenly distributed across the cross-section thickness, t.
The other loading condition is for when the locomotive is jacked up. This will only affect the
bottom pin as it is the pin connected to the wheelset which will effectively be suspended from it. It
was previously stated that the wheelset would have a maximum weight of around 5000 N. As there
exist four pins per wheelset, this load can be taken to be 1250 N per pin.
The above discussed loading conditions can be visualised over the pin as shown in Figures 104a
and 104b.

(b) Figure modelling the assumed loading situation

(a) Assumed loading situation on the top pin on the bottom pin

Figure 104: Both loading situations on the lockout pins

There is now the need to calculate the direct stress due to bending, and the shear stress before
resolving into a von Mises stress distribution across the cross-section.
To calculate the maximum bending moment experienced around each axis, the principle of
minimum total potential energy will be used [133]. This states that equilibrium is reached when the
variation of the total potential energy of the system is equal to 0, as expressed mathematically in
8.6. WHEELSET TO BOGIE FRAME COUPLING 143

Equation 8.6.6.

δPEtotal = PEst + PEext = 0 (8.6.6)

The stored potential energy, PEst , for a bending scenario can be found to be equivalent to [134]:

t 2
d 2ν
Z 
1
PEst = EI dx (8.6.7)
2 0 dx 2
The potential energy due to external loading, PEext , is equal to the negative of the work done
[135], WD, in the system by external forces. In the case of the top pin, this evaluates to Equa-
tion 8.6.8.
Z t
R1
PEext = −WD = − · νdx (8.6.8)
0 t
Thus, the total stored potential energy in the system (for the top pin) becomes:
Z t  00 2 Z t
1 R1
PEtotal = EI ν dx − · νdx (8.6.9)
2 0 0 t
For equilibrium, the variation in total potential energy (δPEtotal ) must equal 0. When applied, it
results in Equation 8.6.10.
Z t Z t
1  00  00 R1
δPEtotal = EI 2ν δν dx − δνdx (8.6.10)
2 0 0 t
00
δν has no meaningful use, and so the first part of Equation 8.6.10 must be continually inte-
grated by parts until all integrands appear with δν. Performing the integral twice yields the result in
Equation 8.6.11, which can be rearranged into the form shown in Equation 8.6.12.
" # Z
h 00 0 it h 000 it Z t 0000 t
R1
δPEtotal = EI ν δν − ν δν + ν δνdx − δνdx = 0 (8.6.11)
0 0 0 0 t

h
00 0 t
i h 000 it  Z t  0000 R1

δPEtotal = EI ν δν − ν δν + EIν − δνdx = 0 (8.6.12)
0 0 0 t
From Equation 8.6.12, the natural boundary conditions can be found through evaluating the
non-integral terms. This equation also yields the governing equation that can be further worked on
to find the maximum bending moment.
As δν is arbitrary [136], for the entire equation to equal 0, each term must equal zero, and,
more importantly, the integrand itself must equal 0. This results in the following five conditions or
expressions.

00 0
ν (t) δν (t) = 0 (8.6.13)
00 0
ν (0) δν (0) = 0 (8.6.14)
000
ν (t) δν (t) = 0 (8.6.15)
000
ν (0) δν (0) = 0 (8.6.16)
d 4ν R1
EI − =0 (8.6.17)
dx 4 t
144 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

0
Looking at the geometry in Figure 104a, it can be said that when x = 0, δν = 0 and δν = 0
0
(fixed wall boundary conditions). When x = t, δν 6= 0 and δν 6= 0 as it is a free end. Implementing
these last two conditions into Equations 8.6.13 and 8.6.15 means:

00
ν (t) = 0 (8.6.18)
000
ν (t) = 0 (8.6.19)

These are known as the natural boundary conditions, and become useful when evaluating the
constants of integration when integrating Equation 8.6.17 twice to obtain an expression for the
d 2ν
bending moment (since the magnitude of bending moment equates to EI 2 ). Physically, Equa-
dx
tion 8.6.18 indicates the bending moment is 0 at the free end, and Equation 8.6.19 indicates the
shear force is 0 at the free end.
Integrating Equation 8.6.17 twice, inputting the natural boundary conditions to evaluate the
constants of integration, and using Equation 8.4.2 yields an expression (Equation 8.6.20) for the
bending moment across the pin. This can be plotted (Figure 105) to find the location and magnitude
of the maximum bending moment.

R1 t R1 x 2
|BM| = + − R1 x (8.6.20)
2 2t

Figure 105: Bending moment variation about the y-axis for the top pin

The maximum bending moment occurs at the root, as expected, and has a magnitude of
5.33 Nm for the top pin. As there is no loading parallel to the y-axis for this pin, the maximum
bending moment about the z-axis is 0. This means the stress distribution over the cross-section of
the top pin at the root of the pin can be described by Equation 8.6.22. This is the simplified version
of Equation 8.6.21 [137].



Mz Iy − My Iyz y + My Iz − Mz Iyz z
σx = 2
(8.6.21)
Iy Iz − Iyz

5.33z
σx = (8.6.22)
I
8.6. WHEELSET TO BOGIE FRAME COUPLING 145

πd 4
Both second moments of area, Iy and Iz , for the pin are equal to , and is denoted I. Due to
64
the symmetrical cross-section, Iyz = 0 [137].
This analysis can be performed for the bottom pin. When performed, the maximum bending
moment occurs at the root of the pin, and the stress distribution of the bottom pin across its cross
section is given by Equation 8.6.23.

6.25y − 1.875z
σx = (8.6.23)
I
The final components of stress the pin can experience is shear stresses on the x-face in the
direction of y, τxy , and z, τxz . Knowing the relation described through Equation 8.6.24 [138], and
applying it to Equation 8.6.21 for the symmetric pin cross-section yields equations for shear stress
distribution across the cross-section (Equations 8.6.25 and 8.6.26) [139].
Z  
1 dσx
τ= dA (8.6.24)
thickness A dx

16F d 2 − 4y 2


τxy = = τyx (8.6.25)
3πd 4

16F d 2 − 4z 2


τxz = = τzx (8.6.26)
3πd 4
The equations describing stresses experienced (Equations 8.6.22, 8.6.23, 8.6.25, and 8.6.26)
can be used to calculate the relevant stress components, which can then be combined to calculate
the von Mises stress distribution across the cross-section of the pins. The von Mises stress equa-
tion for the pin loading described through Figures 104a and 104b is stated in Equation 8.6.27 [140].

q

σvon = σx2 + 3 τxy
2 + τ2
xz (8.6.27)

The von Mises stress distribution can be plotted for different diameters of pins which would help
determine the ideal pin dimension. Assuming bolt construction is of A2-70 Stainless Steel, it would
be desirable to keep the maximum stress experienced well below the 0.2% proof stress value of
450 MPa [141].
The plots below (Figures 106a and 106b) show stress distribution for a pin under worst case
loading conditions. Stress analysis for an ideal pin diameter of 8 mm is shown; The Python script,
however, allows a pin of any diameter to be investigated. Figures 106a shows the stress distribution
for the top pin, and Figure 106b shows the stress distributions for the bottom pin.
146 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

(a) von Mises stress distribution across the top pin (b) von Mises stress distribution across the bottom
when it is assumed to have a 8 mm diameter pin when it is assumed to have a 8 mm diameter

Figure 106: von Mises stress distribution on the top and bottom pins for an 8mm pin diameter

8.7 Suspension MD

8.7.1 Suspension Introduction

Suspension refers to any systems in place to isolate vibrations from the rail-wheel interface to
the actual payload of a wagon. A well-designed suspension system ensures a smoother, more
comfortable ride on passenger trains, but can also help reduce problems such as derailing.
Railway suspension systems are divided into two broad categories: primary and secondary
suspension systems. Primary suspension refers to any kind of suspension directly connected to the
wheel or the axle, whereas secondary suspension refers to suspension systems located anywhere
else, such as between the bogie and the frame. These can be used exclusively or in conjunction
with each other. In freight bogies, for example, it is uncommon to use double suspended bogies,
with many freight bogies using only secondary suspension [106].
Passenger wagons tend to use more complex double suspended bogie systems, as ride comfort
is much more important.

Double Suspension

The concept of double suspension is to add an additional layer of suspension between the final
sprung mass and the rail-wheel interface. If used correctly, this can lead to improvements in sus-
pension characteristics and a lessened effect of rail or wheel irregularities on ride comfort. This
might seem to be an obvious choice if ride comfort is a priority (which in this case it is, as the
IMechE Railway Challenge includes a ride comfort challenge); however, like any additional feature,
there are also costs and trade-offs that must be considered.
The trade-offs, in this case, are cost, weight, space, and complexity. In the case of this specific
train design, cost is not a crucial factor, and using a second layer of suspension would most likely
be financially feasible. Weight is also not a concern, as the design is predicted to be significantly
under the IMechE weight limit of 2,000 kg. Space, however, is a concern due to the large size of
the motors which have to be mounted on the bogie, in a fairly central position, which is the position
a potential secondary suspension would also be vying for. Air suspension systems (explained in
more detail in the following section), which are the most commonly used type of suspension system,
take up quite a bit of space, and the overall size and shape of the bogie would likely have to be
8.7. SUSPENSION 147

altered to fit both the motor and an air suspension system. The final trade-off is actually the most
important: complexity. During the entire design process, a concerted effort has been made to keep
the design as simple as possible. This is especially important as this is the first year the University
of Southampton will be competing in the IMechE Challenge. A more complex design introduces
more potential points of failure, which should be reduced at all cost.
The benefits of double suspension are clear; whether these benefits outweigh the trade-offs will
become apparent after some analysis and experimentation.

8.7.2 Common Suspension Systems

Leaf Springs

Leaf springs used to be a common suspension system; however, their use has declined significantly
over the last century. Although leaf springs can provide damping due to inter-leaf friction, it is
difficult to calculate this damping and varies significantly depending on lubrication or contamination
of the surfaces. This means that damping cannot be as targeted as a separate damper, and leaf
springs are not as simple as coil springs.

Air Springs

Air springs are commonly used in modern passenger wagons, though generally only as a sec-
ondary suspension.

Coil Springs

Coil springs have been and still are in wide usage for many suspension applications, due to their
ease of use, production, and maintenance. Furthermore, they are lightweight and small. Some
disadvantages include the inability to vary spring characteristics in operation, as well as the fact
that damping is insignificant on coil springs and thus separate damping must be used.

Rubber Springs

Rubber springs work by elastically deforming a block of rubber. One benefit over coil springs is
that rubber springs exhibit better damping properties. However, rubber and other plastics are not
as durable as metal coil springs.

Active suspension

Active suspension does not use the compression of a material to provide suspension. Instead,
actuators are used to determine the position of each individual wheel, giving very precise and
advanced suspension features when done correctly. However, the amount of electronics required
and complexity of the entire system do not make this a viable option, even in full-size trains.

8.7.3 Initial Calculations

So as to gauge which parts can be used, and general space and weight requirements, rough
suspension requirements must be determined. Iwnicki et. al. give two equations which are useful
in this. The first, as seen in Equation 8.7.1, gives the relation of force, displacement, and stiffness,
more commonly known as Hooke’s law.

Pst
fst = (8.7.1)
c
where fst is the displacement, Pst is the normal force, and c is the stiffness.
148 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

Equation 8.7.2 relates Hooke’s law to the body bounce of the sprung mass.

c g
ω2 = = (8.7.2)
M fst
The body bounce frequency ranges anywhere from 0.9 Hz to 4 Hz for a fully loaded freight
wagon [107]. Unfortunately, there are no indications for locomotives, and since no further specifics
are given, a range of values will have to be assumed for the moment.
A further complication was that during the early stage in the design process, the sprung mass
of the locomotive was unknown. The competition requires the total mass to be under 2000 kg,
though initial estimates were closer to 1000 kg. Having changed from a fully electric to a petrol
electric traction system, estimates were lowered even further. This means that the sprung mass
may be anywhere between 400 kg and 800 kg. Using these rough mass estimates, as well as
the vague frequencies of body oscillation between 0.9 Hz and 4 Hz, the stiffness c is anywhere
between 325 kN/m and 12,800 kN/m.
Furthermore, these basic calculations hinge on the body bounce frequencies given in Iwnicki
et. al., which are not only vague but are also not necessarily equivalent on 10¼ gauge track.
In the Handbook of Vehicle Dynamics, a model bogie built for testing purposes (with roughly
similar dimensions to those being investigated) used a vertical stiffness of 4,730 kN/m; however,
the body mass was only 33 kg [107].

8.7.4 Vibration Testing

As previously explained, there is very little information available on suspension design for model
trains. Therefore, it was decided to undertake vibration testing on an existing 10¼” track and loco-
motive. The variable of interest was the acceleration experienced by the wheels of the locomotive,
which are the main source of excitation for the locomotive. There are also other sources of vibra-
tion experienced by the locomotive, such as the generator, motors, and brakes when in operation.
However, these were ignored for the purpose of this testing, as this was purely to determine the
vibration created by the rail-wheel interface.
Initially, the idea of this experiment was to be able to determine a rail profile. A railway track is
never perfectly flat, and often a sinusoidal function is used to model the differences in track height.
However, it was quickly found that the main source of vibration is the rail joints between individual
rails.

Experimental Setup

Testing was performed at Eastleigh Lakeside Railway using the “Eurostar” locomotive pulling sev-
eral passenger carriages. Two accelerometers were used, of type Brüel & Kjær 4514-001, kindly
lent to the team by the ISVR. During each test run, both accelerometer inputs were measured.
These were fixed to different parts of the train, with one unsprung and one sprung accelerometer
measurement for each run. The first accelerometer was fixed to the pivot which the axle is fixed
to, which effectively acts as an axlebox, on a passenger carriage. The second accelerometer was
placed on various sprung parts of the train:

• Passenger carriage bogie frame

• Passenger carriage body frame
• Locomotive bogie frame.
8.7. SUSPENSION 149

While ideally it would have been preferable to mount the unsprung accelerometer to the lo-
comotive when performing tests on the locomotive bogie frame, this was not possible due to the
design of the locomotive bogies, which do not provide enough space on the axlebox to mount an
accelerometer. In theory, there should be no difference in the vibrations experienced by the pas-
senger bogie axle and the locomotive bogie axle, since the track and wheel size are the same.
However, one issue to consider is that in the time domain, the locomotive and passenger carriage
pass the same section of track with a slight delay, so there should be a slight, but noticeable time
offset when passing over a rail joint.

Data Analysis

Several test runs were made, all achieving similar results. The calculations and analysis will be
performed for one such test run; the other test runs can be found in Appendix I.
The graphs of the data collected from one such test run can be seen in Figure 107. The two blue
graphs, i.e. the first and third graphs from the top, are the measured accelerations, on the unsprung
and on the sprung mass respectively. The second and fourth figures are the Fourier transform of
these two graphs, which changes them from the time domain to the frequency domain. In the fourth
graph, some trends are already apparent, especially in the low frequency range.
By dividing the sprung frequency plot by the unsprung frequency plot, the fifth and final figure
is generated. This isolates the effect of the suspension, and shows which frequencies are damped
most by the suspension. The main vibrations that are being damped by the springs are in the low
frequency domain, around 15 Hz. From this, the required stiffness can be found using the following
equation [142]: r
1 k
fn = (8.7.3)
2π m
where fn is the natural frequency, k is spring stiffness and m is sprung mass.

8.7.5 Secondary Suspension

As previously explained, the notion of using a secondary suspension was not pursued any further
following the vibration testing. The reason for this decision was ultimately due to the cost and
benefit of adding a secondary suspension. The monetary cost of using two levels of suspension
would probably not have been a concern due to the generous budget at the team’s disposal; the
cost in this case is primarily space, but also time required to perform relevant calculations, find
suitable models, and fit this model appropriately.
The initial idea was to use an air suspension system to emulate full sized trains; however,
an additional cost for this type of suspension is that the system is quite complex, leading to an
increased possibility of failure. Due to one of the project’s principal aims being simplicity of the
locomotive, air suspension had to be discarded. This is clearly a strong contender for future work
on bogies, especially since sourcing air springs in the dimensions required was deemed possible
[143] [144].

8.7.6 Noise Reduction

Since one of the challenges of the IMechE competition is noise, noise reduction techniques were
briefly considered. However, the petrol generator will inevitably be a lot noisier than noise generated
from the track-rail interface. The noise from the rail-track interface becomes a lot more important at
high running speeds, but should not be a concern at the imposed running speeds which lie under
150 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

Figure 107: Suspension graphs

8.8. BRAKE SYSTEM INTEGRATION 151

15 km/h. However, if in future the locomotive’s primary power source is replaced by a hydrogen
fuel cell or some other silent technology, noise reduction in the wheelset interactions will need to
be considered.

8.8 Brake System Integration MD

One of the subsystems which needs to be accommodated within the bogie is the braking system.
At the very least, the brake discs, callipers, and actuating cylinders have to be placed on the bogie.
The reservoirs and vacuum pump can be placed within the main body of the locomotive since they
are only necessary in creating the vacuum, and not in the mechanical brake operation.

8.8.1 Brake Disc CM

One important axle attachment is the brake disc. A calliper fits around this and when the brakes
are actuated, the calliper closes which prevents the disc from spinning. With a rigid connection
to the axle, which in turn has a rigid connection to the wheels, preventing or restricting the brake
disc from spinning will prevent or slow the rotation of the wheels resulting in the locomotive slowing
down.
The diameter of the brake disc is an important parameter to consider, as too is the thickness.
The larger the brake disc diameter, the greater the moment due to braking about the centre of the
axle. This results in larger stresses at the brake keyway. Based on this reasoning alone, it seems
that a small brake disc would be more desirable, however, a small brake disc dissipates heat less
efficiently than a larger brake disc. An overheating brake disc can cause brake fade which is highly
undesirable. Thus, a compromise has to be reached between stresses induced and heat build up.
Fortunately, stresses can be reduced through design, and so the disc diameter will take its
maximum value (note that it cannot exceed the diameter of the wheel). To ensure it does not
become damaged through contact with the ground, the diameter will be taken to be slightly less
than that of the wheel, so roughly 200 mm.
In order to fit in the calliper, the brake disc has to be less than 6 mm. As stress is inversely
proportional to contact area, it is desirable to have a thickness greater than this at the axle-brake
interface. As such, the inner section of the disc has a greater thickness than the outer regions. The
transition between the two thickness values will occur through a step change somewhere along the
disc. This is purely for manufacturing reasons. As a step change in thickness effectively creates
a region which will experience a high stress concentration, it was decided to apply a fillet between
the two to reduce the stress concentration.
Another way to reduce the stress concentration at the axle-disc interface is to increase the size
or the number of regions that aim to slow the axle rotational speed. In this case, these are the
keyways. The greater the number of keyways used, the lower the peak stress. As four keyways
can fit onto the axle, it would make sense to make use of them all. In doing so, the stress peak
should be reduced from a scenario where two keyways are used.
The final brake disc is run through FEA with a torque equivalent to the maximum permitted
weight of the train decelerating at the maximum permitted deceleration rate to ensure the maximum
stress experience does not cause failure. A dynamic factor of 1.3 is applied to this value. The
moment arm is assumed to be the radius of the disc (0.1 m). This yields a maximum torque of
1131 Nm (calculation shown in 8.8.1) being applied to the axle. The FEA stress results can be
seen in Figures 108 and 109. The final brake disc EDMC drawing can be seen in Appendix F as
152 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

P21-BRK-001.

Maximum Torque = 1.3 (2400g (1.45)) × 0.1 = 1131 Nm (8.8.1)

The two outputs from the FEA show the maximum stress experienced under the loading, along
with the safety factor. In reality, the locomotive will not be 2 tonnes in mass (most likely around
500-750 kg), and so a safety factor greater than 1 would show a design suitable for the operating
environment. The safety factor calculated through FEA shows it to be 1.14. This is sufficient to use
this design.

Figure 108: FEA output showing the maximum possible stress under braking a locomotive of mass
2 tonnes pulling a 400 kg trailing load

Figure 109: FEA output showing the safety factor under braking a locomotive of mass 2 tonnes
pulling a 400 kg trailing load
8.9. FINAL DESIGN 153

8.8.2 Callipers
Airheart MB1 mechanical brake callipers were selected; these come with an adapter on the top
side of the calliper with holes for bolts. Ideally, it would have been possible to have aluminium
frame directly above these holes. However, this was not possible since the height of the calliper
did not match up with the height of the frame, so an adapter was designed to mount the callipers to
the frame. The design is a simple L-bracket made from 2 mm sheet steel. This was validated using
FEA under maximum braking conditions of 800 N on each calliper (see Table 15 in Section 6.9);
the results are shown in Figure 110b. The safety factor under these worst-case conditions is 1.7.

(b) FEA for calliper mount under maximum

(a) Calliper mount in the final CAD assembly braking (800 N)

Figure 110: Calliper mount final design and validation

8.8.3 Cylinder
The actuating cylinder needs to be mounted within reach of the callipers, so as to move the lever
situated on the callipers. The cylinder has to be mounted in such a way that it actuates tangentially
to the brake disc, as this is the direction the lever needs to be applied to apply the brakes. The
cylinder has two dowels on either side which can be used for mounting. One issue that came up
was that the opening of the cylinder, which the tubing connects to, is directly behind one of the
dowels; this makes cylinder placement slightly more involved because it is not possible to simply
put two beams on either side of the cylinder.
The solution devised is to use short sections of aluminium beam, which have holes in the centre.
So as to reduce them

8.9 Final Design MD

The final bogie design (Figure 111) incorporates all the design decisions outlined in this section to
fulfil all the necessary requirements. These bogie design features are summarised below.

• Two bogies; two axles per bogie

• Wheels secured to axles using keyway design and circlips, allowing more flexibility
• Sprockets and brake disc equally secured to axle with keyways and circlips
• Plummer block ball bearings as axleboxes
• Primary suspension using four die springs per axle
• Bogie frame integrating motors, brake callipers and actuators using various mounts
• Flat turntable ball bearing between bogie frame and locomotive frame.
154 CHAPTER 8. BOGIE DESIGN

Figure 111: Render of final bogie layout

8.9.1 Wheelset
The final wheelset-suspension assembly is shown in Figure 112.

Figure 112: Final wheelset-suspension assembly

9. Frame Design DH

A fundamental part of the locomotive is the frame or chassis, which holds together the other sub-
systems and links the bogies to the trailing load. The “chassis” for a train was often called a
locomotive frame when referring to older models, particularly during the steam train era. As part of
this project the three main options for frame design were identified and compared:

• Full size frames have traditionally been cast [145], ensuring high strength and creating the
correct shape. This was used extensively when it was necessary for intricate details to be
included to allow the placement of boilers and associated machinery. For the purposes of
this project this is impractical, requiring significant investment in tooling, which makes casting
uneconomic for building a single example. If an intricate design was generated and mass
production was needed, casting the frame could be considered.
• More modern locomotives use welded steel frames to form the base on which to build other
parts of the structure [146]. Although a cheap and practical solution which would be more
than capable of withstanding the loads involved, welded steel frame cannot be easily changed
once manufactured, requiring the design to be 100% complete before any manufacture can
take place. Because the requirements of this project will develop as the project progresses,
this method may not be suitable as it does not allow these changes to be accommodated.
The initial cost of materials for this method is approximately £260, but there would also be
manufacturing costs incurred to weld the frame together.
• A potential solution seen on similar prototype small locomotive designs uses extruded alu-
minium beams with adjustable fixings. The beam provides the strength needed, however the
nature of the fixing mechanisms make designing sufficiently strong structures more compli-
cated.

For the remainder of this report only the latter two options were explored.

9.1 Loading DH
In order to evaluate the different options, the loading associated with the train was calculated to
generate a load situation. The rules stipulate a 600 kg mass (m) trailing load must be pulled, with
track conditions including a 5% gradient [15]. The maximum breaking deceleration is specified as
-1.33 m/s2 (+ 0.15), however the maximum acceleration (a) is predicted to be 2 m/s2 .

9.1.1 Trailing Load

The maximum force produced by the trailing load (F ) is calculated using Equation 9.1.1.

X
F = m × (g × sin(θ) + a) (9.1.1)

With a gradient of 5%, the angle of incline (θ) is 2.86°. The gravitational constant (g) is known
to be 9.81 m/s2 . Inputting these values into Equation 9.1.1 gives Equation 9.1.2.

600 × (9.81 × sin(2.86) + 2) = 1493.68 N (9.1.2)

The IMechE specification also requires a 30% safety factor to be included, as shown in Equa-

155
156 CHAPTER 9. FRAME DESIGN

tion 9.1.3.

1493.68 × 1.3 = 1941.79 N (9.1.3)

The headstock should therefore be designed to withstand a load of at least 1942 N.

To calculate the moments experienced by the frame connections, the trailing load is assumed
to be a point load centred on the headstock beam. Using the width of the frame to be 0.6 m, a
moment arm of 0.3 m can be used to show the moment in the horizontal plane, generated by the
trailing load, is 583 N as shown in Equation 9.1.4.

0.3 × 1941.79 = 582.54 Nm (9.1.4)

The trailing load also generates a moment in the vertical plane, due to the connector being
mounted below the rest of the frame. The rules specify the connection bar must sit 10” above the
rail head [15]. Once the height of the bogies and bearing were factored in, the connector would sit
115 mm below the top of the frame. The vertical moment can be calculated giving the torque (T )
applied on the headstock, as shown in Equation 9.1.5.

T = 1941.79 × 0.115 = 223.31 Nm (9.1.5)

9.1.2 Bogie Loading

The trailing load will be transferred to the rails through the bogie connections, which under normal
operation will be equally spread over both bogies, however each connector should be able to with-
stand the whole force of the train which might be applied during abnormal operation. An example
of this would be if part of the braking system were to fail; the rules require that the braking system
adequately operate with only 50% of the system working, this would then mean the whole force of
the braking locomotive would be transferred through a single beam.
Including the mass of the superstructure in Equation 9.1.2 gives the requirement to withstand
2751 N acting through the centre of the beam as shown in Equation 9.1.6.

(600 + 250) × (9.81 × sin(2.86) + 2) × 1.3 = 2750.87 N (9.1.6)

The bogie connection must also withstand the mass of the locomotive acting vertically through
the supporting beam. Because the mass of the locomotive may increase as systems are added,
and will also be unevenly distributed during travel over inclined sections of track, the connections
should be able to withstand more than half of the mass situated on the frame, to allow for a suitable
safety factor. The locomotive mass is predicted to be 500 kg, with 250 kg situated on the frame,
the bogie beams should therefore be able to withstand 1500 N acting vertically on the centre of the
beam.

9.2 Material Choice DH

Initially the design team decided to proceed on the assumption of using the aluminium profile
extrusion system, while maintaining the option of manufacturing a steel frame if the aluminium
proved unsuitable. Several manufacturers were approached about the possibility of using their
system, with varying levels of success.
9.3. LAYOUT 157

The Bosch Rexroth system was eventually selected by the project team due to ease of availabil-
ity, being stocked by RS Components for next day delivery, as well as being able to take advantage
of Siemens 20% RS discount.
Bosch’s range include a variety of thinknesses of beam. By using the graph in Appendix H the
45×45 mm beams were chosen based on the loading conditions. This size of beam also allowed
access to the largest variety of couplers in the range, ensuring that any future requirements could
be met by connection systems.
Most manufacturers provided CAD files of the extrusion profile to aid drawings. Bosch’s profile
was imported and extruded to form the construction beams for CAD modelling.
The final design was reached by the processes outlined above. The main issue with the alu-
minium extrusion is that the connectors are the likely location of failure, being far weaker than the
beams themselves. This makes the connection calculations vital, but it is also important to confirm
the stress experienced by the beams does not exceed the stated yield stress.
A second option of having a welded steel frame was pursued using the dimensions and the
loading outlined in Section 9.1. The viability of the backup was validated using basic FEA modelling,
as shown in Figure 113, which confirmed steel frame was suitable for the project if necessary.

Figure 113: von Mises FEA stress plot for steel frame design

9.3 Layout DH
Initial dimensions of 700 mm wide and 3000 mm long were used when calculating original materials
costs. This was generated from the maximum allowable width (710 mm) as per the IMechE Railway
Challenge Technical Specification [15], incorporating space for protruding bolts, and the length of
the previous Eurostar train being roughly 3 m. The aim was to decrease these figures as more
information became available.
The biggest factor in frame length choice was how much room the bogies would require to
rotate. To ensure there would be no interference under any conditions the diagonal distance of the
bogies was used to ensure the bogies would not touch the headstock beams. The bogies were
also mounted so that they would not touch in the centre, allowing 1035 mm between bogie-frame
connections. The clearance between the headstock beams would therefore have to be a minimum
of 1830 mm. This meant the frame length was finalised with 2 m long longitudinal beams.
Several factors influenced the frame width, with the overall constraint stipulated in the rules be-
ing that the train must be less than 710 mm wide as identified above. This must also include the
shell and any control equipment mounted on the side of the locomotive plus a suitable safety mar-
158 CHAPTER 9. FRAME DESIGN

gin. The minimum width is influenced by the width of the bogies and also the generator, ensuring
enough room to access machinery and allow for cable management.
As will be explained in Section 9.4, where possible beams are laid onto of supporting beams.
This is the case for the beams supporting the generator, as can be seen in Figure 114 .

Figure 114: View of the frame showing the lateral generator support beams fixed on top of the main
longitudinal beams

9.3.1 Superstructure DH
Another requirement of the frame structure is to support the subsystems and integrate them into the
rest of the frame. Initially the project team suggested having metal plates (as seen in Figure 116a)
bolted onto the frame. Three separate plates were used to facilitate easier disassembly, as well as
to isolate the vibrations coming from the generator mounted centrally. As the space requirements
of the subsystems became more apparent, coupled with the need to have efficient cable manage-
ment, it was clear there would not be enough space on the floor alone. A system of racks was then
created, situating the heaviest and least accessed parts (the batteries and supercapacitor) on the
bottom to ensure a lower centre of gravity, with the smaller and more accessible components sitting
on the top levels.
Using a plate metal floor for the generator not only seemed wasteful, but would also provide
a large diaphragm to amplify any vibrations produced. This lead to three beams being chosen
to support the generator. Another course for concern were the two resistors used as part of the
supercapacitor charge and discharge circuits. Not only were they extremely large compared to
other circuit components, but they were also predicted to reach high temperatures during operation,
requiring significant cooling and requiring a stand-off distance from sensitive components such as
the supercapacitor. Because there was significant space, and a larger volume of air for cooling, the
resistors were placed either side of the generator, allowing cooling vents to be specifically cut into
the shell.
During assembly, bolting the lower shelves straight onto the frame was experimented with,
as seen in Figure 115 , but because some of the connectors interfered with gussets, as well as
vibrations causing the unclamped sides to knock against the frame, meant the beams were used
instead. This also gave better access during assembly to the bogies below.
9.3. LAYOUT 159

Figure 115: Experimenting without supporting beams

(a) Initial floor plates design (b) Shelf design

Figure 116: Initial and final superstructure designs

Because the racks would mostly experience small loads, S12 connection screws as detailed
in Figure 120b were used instead of gussets as will be discussed in Section 9.4. This reduced
costs but required the vertical beams be drilled to allow the screws to be tightened, increasing
machining time and reducing flexibility. This required shelf dimensions and layout to be finalised
before construction, factoring in the heights of components including their connector covers and
dampening inserts.
As the frame and racks moved towards a final design there was a need to integrate the frame
and shell to provide support. During consultation with the shell design team it was decided the side
plates would bolt directly onto the vertical beams of the racks, but that the curving roof would need
its own support to give the desired shape. This meant adding an extra longitudinal beam on top of
the racks, providing connection at the correct height to attach the roof. The height increase was
facilitated through use of a double height (45×90 mm) beam, bolted on using 90×90 mm gussets.
160 CHAPTER 9. FRAME DESIGN

By resting the ends of the top shelf beams on the vertical struts, any downward force produced
by the roof would be transferred directly to the frame, without the need to increase loading on
the connection screws holding the rest of the shelves together. A beneficial side effect of the
longitudinal top beam was that it would act to strengthen the frame against bending, providing
extra reinforcement through compressive strength.
FEA was conducted on the shelf as seen in Figure 117. This used the highest predicted loads
which were present on the battery shelf due each of the two batteries weighing 16.5 kg. By having
5 mm aluminium shelves there was a 100% safety factor, allowing for the assumptions of the FEA
as well as any holes drilled in the plate when attaching equipment, as seen in Figure 118.

Figure 117: von Mises FEA stress plot for 5 mm aluminium shelf design

Figure 118: Contactors being attached to the shelf by the E&C subteam

9.4 Connections DH
As part of the Bosch Rexroth system there are many different connectors available, each cover-
ing specific loading conditions. Some connectors require preparation and cutting of the aluminium
beams in order to be located in place. This would somewhat nullify some of the reasons for choos-
ing the aluminium extrusion system, where the beams would no longer be easily moved. The main
connection method chosen was therefore connection gussets which can be bolted and un-bolted,
allowing movement up and down the beams. Gussets also give good strength relative to other
connection methods and are therefore able to withstand the loads outlines in Section 9.1.
The extracts in Figures 120a and 120b are taken from the Bosch Rexroth catalogue and show
the load ratings for the connectors chosen. As shown in Figure 120a the 45×90 mm gussets
provide the strongest fittings but are rated higher in tension than compression. This meant in many
9.4. CONNECTIONS 161

early designs that gussets were used on both sides of the headstock, causing the beams to be set
back from the end of the frame as shown in Figure 119. This was not desirable due to the extra
length needed and potential conflict situations when integrating with the shell. This was overcome
by butting the headstock beams against the ends of the long side beams. This caused the forces
to be directly transferred onto the beam in one direction, halving the gusset requirement. For the
smaller load-bearing connections the 45×45 mm connectors provide enough stability, are cheaper
and take up less room than the larger gussets. This made them the standard choice for this project.

Figure 119: Early design using double gusset arrangement

(a) Gusset connector load ratings [147] (b) Bolted connector load ratings [147]

Figure 120: Bosch connector load ratings

9.4.1 Headstock Connections

As discussed in Section 9.1, the headstock beams are required to withstand 582.54 Nm in the
horizontal plane. The two 90×90 mm gussets are rated to 400 Nm as shown in Figure 120a and
so together give an extra safety factor of 37%.

Figure 121: View of the headstock beam showing the 45×45mm connectors attached between the
longitudinal beams and the headstock

Equation 9.1.5 also shows that the headstock must withstand a torque of 583 Nm in the vertical
162 CHAPTER 9. FRAME DESIGN

direction. By fitting the double height headstock beams directly on the end of the longitudinal side
beams, there is space for a small 45×45 mm connector under each side of the headstock as shown
in Figure 121. These connectors can withstand a force of 3000 N as shown in Figure 120a, which,
when acting with the vertical moment arm of 45 mm, can withstand 135 Nm each as shown in
Equation 9.4.1.

T = 3000 × 0.045 = 135 Nm (9.4.1)

When both small connectors are combined with the 60 Nm torsional strength from each of the
45×90 mm gussets, the combined torsional strength is 390 Nm, showing that together they can
withstand the torque calculated in Equation 9.1.5 and provide a 70% safety factor.

9.4.2 Bogie Connections

By mounting the connectors horizontally in order to withstand the acceleration loads calculated
in Equation 9.1.6, the vertical forces generated by the bogie-frame interaction and the weight of
the locomotive were initially only supported by the very weak torsional strength of the gussets, as
detailed in Figure 120a. Therefore wherever possible cross beams are mounted on top of the load
bearing side beams, transferring forces directly onto the frame rather than relying of the strength of
connectors. This arrangement was not possible with the bogie connection due to the requirement
to lift the train with the bogies still attached, meaning the attachment must withstand both upwards
and downwards forces. To make this possible without impacting the lateral strength, initially a
second beam was added above as shown in Figure 122, making use of the stronger orientation of
connectors. This design was then superseded through use of connection screws rated to 1300 N
as shown in Figure 120b. These were screwed into the ends of the bogie beams, as shown in
Figure 123.

Figure 122: Double bogie beam arrangement

Because the beam has fixed ends attached to the frame, a different bending moment calculation
can be used [37]:

Load × Beam Length

Moment = (9.4.2)
8
The mass of the train is approximately 500 kg, with 250 kg situated on the frame. The mass will
not be evenly distributed and therefore there may be fluctuations of loading, meaning the connec-
tion should be designed to withstand at least 150 kg. Equation 9.4.2 can then be used to calculate
9.5. COUPLING 163

(a) Connection screws in double beam (b) S12 connection screw arrangement

Figure 123: Use of S12 connection screws

the bending moment experienced by the connectors:

1500 × 0.51
= 95.625 Nm (9.4.3)
8
The S12 connection screws are rated for 80 Nm each as shown in Figure 120b and can with-
stand 1300 N acting at the connection. By using two each side of the bogie beam, they alone are
enough to withstand the bending moments and vertical forces (explained in Section 9.1) acting on
the connection, with the large gussets providing an extra safety factor in addition to their primary
role of providing horizontal strength.
Equation 9.4.3 can also be used when calculating the longitudinal forces acting on the beam.
By using Equation 9.1.6 to give the load acting on the beam, Equation 9.4.4 gives the bending
moment on the bogie beam.

2751 × 0.51
= 175.37 Nm (9.4.4)
8
By using the large gussets identified in Figure 120a there is a large safety factor, as each
gusset can withstand 180 Nm in their weakest direction, and 400 Nm in their strongest, giving a
total strength of 1160 Nm for each beam.
When working with connectors it is important to follow the manufacturers torque recommenda-
tions when assembling the frame. For the gussets, the bolts are required to be tightened to 25 Nm,
if the design strengths are to be used, as shown in Figure 120a. This requires use of a torque
wrench during construction.

9.5 Coupling DH
As described in Section 9.1, the coupling connector must allow the coupling bar to be attached
10" above the rail head and must be able to withstand the coupling loads as calculated in Equa-
tion 9.1.2.
164 CHAPTER 9. FRAME DESIGN

(a) Coupler design 1 (b) Coupler design 2

Figure 124: Initial coupler designs

Initial designs used the single story 45×45 mm headstock beam as shown in Figure 124, but
these would have been unable to withstand the torsional moments as described in equation 9.1.5.
To mitigate this, a double story 45×90 mm beam was introduced with small gussets attached
underneath as shown in Figure 121. By mounting them underneath, the gussets are loaded in their
strongest direction, allowing them to withstand to forces required. Using double story beam also
gives two attachment points for the coupling connection, and moves the connection point much
closer to the required drawbar height, therefore reducing the moment arm.
Although connectors which would wrap around the beam were considered, as seen above, bolt-
ing the connections directly to the beam would also be strong enough and be a simpler design. A
potential downside would be interaction between the bolts and the connection bar, but calculations
confirm that at the specified height the connection bar will not interfere with the bolts. FEA was then
conducted on the final design which confirmed the suitability of the material for the forces involved.

Figure 125: Von Mises FEA stress plot for coupler design

9.5.1 Drawbar DH
As well as the requirement for the coupler there was also a need to manufacture a drawbar to
connect to the trailing load. As part of the competition there was a specification and technical
drawing to follow which can be seen in Appendix G, which will make manufacture simple since the
material and bearings have been purchased already.
9.6. JACKING 165

9.6 Jacking DH
In order to move the locomotive into place there is a need for a jacking system to lift the locomotive
clear above the track and move it around. The rules also require jacking points to be identified and
marked.
Initial research was conducted into different methods, specifically to whether separate systems
should be used to jack and move the locomotive, or if a single system would be a better option.
Whatever system is selected, a suitable location will need to be identified which can withstand
the whole mass of the train. Ideally this should be close to the bogie connections, which are high
concentrations of load. By locating the jacking points on the on the main beams there is no need
to add extra strengthening methods and should therefore make the system simpler.
As discussed above, parts of the design were changed to accommodate the extra vertical forces
associated with jacking the locomotive. This initially meant extra beams were added above the
bogies to withstand their weight while hanging beneath the frame, but as discussed in Section 9.4
the final design used connection screws.
A system which would allow both outcomes to be achieved could use trailer jockey wheels,
which provide a load bearing wheel and a way of raising the frame. The jockey wheels would
need to be located a suitable distance from the frame to allow the handle to rotate while raising
or lowering the frame. This requirement lead to the use of a steel box-beam to allow the wheels
to be offset from the frame. The jockey wheel attachment plate was the bolted onto the side of
the beam to reduce the manufacturing requirement. To ensure the wheels did not fall over, two
methods were suggested. The first involved a second beam running lengthways along the side of
the frame, this would transfer any rotational motion to the long bar rather than toppling the wheels.
This method would put less stress on the connection but would take up more room and require
more machining. The second method was to bolt the main steel beam directly onto the bottom of
the frame, the bottom was suggested as an attachment point to avoid the need for gussets, which
have low torsional strength, and also so there would be no interference with the shell on the outside
of the frame. The downside of this was the higher stresses transferred onto the connection with the
frame.
An initial design is shown in Figure 126a showing a single beam which would fit under the frame
next to the headstock beams.

(b) Final jacking assembly in use during

(a) Initial jacking design testing

Figure 126: Jacking designs

166 CHAPTER 9. FRAME DESIGN

This design then evolved to include two supporting angle brackets, as seen in Figure 126b,
which would prevent the beam rotating when the wheels were aligned at certain angles. Connection
grooves were then added to these supports to allow them to be fixed onto the underside of the
frame. The assembly was then welded together with holes drilled to allow the attachment of the
jockey wheel clamps on the side.
One of the considerations when designing this system was the overall width. Although the aim
was to allow it to fit on the tail lift of a Luton van, there was also a requirement to allow sufficient
room for the handle to rotate. The final design meant reducing the radius of the handle to avoid
impacting the shell while still allowing the system to fit within the constraints.

9.7 FEA MC
In order to validate the final frame design, FEA was conducted. With the geometry confirmed, the
material was set to Aluminium 6063 T6 as indicated by the manufacturer technical specifications
for the Bosch Rexroth frame [147]. The geometry used was the same as indicated in Figure 114
and the FEA set-up is shown in Figure 127a. The frame FEA was carried out to replicate the
locomotive frame under loading from components above it, resting on the bogies and pulling a
trailing load. A central load of 300 N spread across the central three support beams to replicate the
generator was included along with four point loads of total force 400 N at each end of the frame to
simulate the shelves supporting electrical components such as the supercapacitor and batteries. A
force applied to the frame by the trailing load was also included, see below for details. Forces are
indicated by purple arrows and blue arrows indicate the rigid connections between frame pieces
to simulate the gussets. Note that in this simulation, the in-plane internal corners have larger split
curve surface areas to simulate the more highly rated gussets for use in these instances. Green
arrows represent the fixed geometry which was chosen to be the connection between frame and
the bogie-frame bearing.
As mentioned above, a force applied to the rear of the frame by the trailing load was included in
the simulation. This force is the result of the locomotive pulling a 600 kg trailing load up a maximum
incline of 1:20 or 2.86°at the maximum predicted acceleration of 2.0 m/s2 under ideal track friction
conditions. Using basic mechanics and resolving forces leads to the following equation:

X
Forces = ma (9.7.1)

which leads to:

X
Ftrailing max = mtrailing g sin θ + mtrailing amaximum (9.7.2)

where F is the force, m is the mass, g is gravitational acceleration, θ is the angle of the incline and
a is the acceleration. Inputting the appropriate values into Equation 9.7.2 leads to:

X
Ftrailing max = 600 × 10 sin 2.86 + 600 × 2.0 = 1499.37...N ≈ 1500 N. (9.7.3)

Based on Equation 9.7.3, a rearward acting force of 1500 N on the underside of the rear double-
height frame beam was added to the previous simulation (including generator and component
loads). Figure 127b shows a von Mises stress plot for the trailing load simulation, with a maximum
stress of 0.162 GPa representing a factor of safety of 1.33 over the yield stress value. It should be
reiterated that the conditions for the maximum acceleration as predicted in this study are incredibly
9.8. FINAL DESIGN 167

unlikely as track friction has to be incredibly high. Regardless, the worst case simulation demon-
strates the suitability of the frame for purpose. Figure 127c shows the displacement plot for the
trailing load scenario with maximum displacement of around 1.87 mm encountered at the drawbar
connection point at the application of the trailing load, as is to be expected.

9.8 Final Design DH

The final design was reached by the processes outlined above. The main issue with the aluminium
extrusion is that the connectors are the likely location of failure, being far weaker than the beams
themselves. This makes the connection calculations vital, but it is also important to confirm that the
stresses experienced by the beams do not exceed their stated yield stress.
The design includes each of the considerations above and integrates them together, as well
incorporating requirements of each of the sub teams through cooperation and teamwork.

Figure 128: Final frame geometry

168 CHAPTER 9. FRAME DESIGN

(a) FEA setup - note the addition of the 1500N force acting centrally on the underside of the foremost double
height beam

(b) von Mises stress plot

(c) Displacement plot

Figure 127: Frame FEA study for locomotive at rest with 1500 N backward-acting force to simulate
maximum acceleration up a 2.86° slope with a 600 kg trailing load
10. Body Shell
10.1 Requirements CM HMF
Factors such as shape, access, ventilation, material, and safety should be taken into consideration
when designing the shell. Shell dimensions are heavily influenced by the shape selected, along
with frame size. Details such as points of access to internals, ventilation, and waterproofing can
help prevent failure and increase functionality. Implementation of noise control methods can also
influence competition performance.

10.2 Noise Control Challenge CL HMF

The principle aim of the noise control challenge is to minimise the sound level experienced as the
locomotive moves. The sound pressure level will be measured at a distance of 1.2 m from the
centreline of the track at a height of 0.5 m as the locomotive passes by [13]. The method chosen
to best achieve this aim is simply to reduce sound energy escaping the locomotive body, utilising a
number of techniques associated with basic noise control theory.
The main source of noise that can be reduced by modifying the shell is that from the generator.
In order to effectively control the sound escaping the locomotive, it is important to understand the
noise path. Once the path is understood (see Figure 129), efforts to mitigate the noise can be
designed and implemented.

Figure 129: Generator noise path

Mitigating steps can now be carried out to reduce the effectiveness of each noise transmission
path; airborne and structural based vibration. If either of the two transmission paths were to be in-
terrupted then the noise magnitude arriving at the microphone would be reduced. All steps taken to
minimise the noise escaping the shell are passive, and depend on structural design considerations.

Airborne Transmission Path

Two different approaches can be used to control airborne based transmission paths - reflection
and dissipation [148]. Reflection occurs when a wall or lining obscures the passage of sound,
and returns it back from its surface. Dissipation occurs when the surface produces heat from the
absorbed sound energy, although in quantities negligible compared to the heat already emitted
from sources within the locomotive systems. Ideally a combination of the two sound reduction

169
170 CHAPTER 10. BODY SHELL

mechanisms are implemented to maximise the sound level reduction, however, modifications made
to reduce sound emissions should not impede locomotive functionality.
Different porous materials such as sound absorbent foam can be applied to interior surfaces
of the locomotive to provide sound reduction ability through dissipation. Of course these materials
have to be appropriate for the intended use (materials should be fire and heat proof), and this limits
the choice available. This method can be subsequently investigated for use in future years.
In principle any shell around the body of the locomotive will induce both reflection and dissipa-
tion of sound energy and hence, the sound levels experienced at the microphone.
To achieve adequate ventilation, incorporation of air vents, or cut-outs, in the shell are required.
Breaks in material continuity such as air vents, or open access panels, can compromise the noise
reducing capabilities of the shell, although intelligent design decisions can be made to reduce this
effect. A simple example of such design decisions include the use of louvred air vents (Figure 130b)
over slotted air vents (Figure 130a). This is because the louvred air vents reflect sound towards the
ground, due to their opening orientation, whilst maintaining adequate ventilation ability.

(a) Slotted air vent [149] (b) Louvred air vent [150]

Figure 130: Potential air vent opening covers

Structural Transmission Path

Noise transmission pathways occur with structural objects carrying the vibrational energy. This can
then lead to vibration of other objects within the construction, resulting in noise being produced
from the vibrational movement of the part. This can be mitigated and avoided as much as possible
by careful design considerations to avoid excessive part vibration, and damping should it occur.
Structural damping is achieved within the shell by incorporation of rubber intermediate lining
between plates, which act to convert vibrational energy to thermal, removing it from the system.

10.2.1 Noise Measurement and Analysis CL HMF

An experiment was conducted to obtain the one third octave band spectra sound power level (SWL)
of the generator. The octave band spectra was then used to calculate the sound pressure level
(SPL) at the microphone. The sound reduction index properties of different shell thicknesses and
the two possible materials are assessed. The sound reduction index is used to simulate the SPL
at the microphone with the intervening presence of the shell.
To find the one third octave band spectra SWL, sound recordings are taken 0.5 m away from
each of the five exposed generator faces. The experimental setup can be seen in Figure131a.
10.2. NOISE CONTROL CHALLENGE 171

−2
10

−3
10

FFT Magnitude, V
−4
10

−5
10
1 2 3
10 10 10
Frequency, Hz
(a)
Setup of the microphone to calcu- (b) Magnitude of receiver voltage at different frequen-
late the noise levels cies

Figure 131: Noise measurement setup and raw data

Fourier transform operations carried out on the microphone output produce a spectra of relative
amplitudes at given frequencies, this can be seen in Figure 131b. Inspection of Figure 131b shows
resonance at various frequencies, which can be identified by sharp peaks. This recording is taken
from the generator running at full power in front of the exhaust.
Figure131b shows resonance at 35.5 Hz, 71.1 Hz and 106.5 Hz - all multiples of 35.5 Hz.
The resonant frequencies listed are dependent upon generator cycle frequency; where the lowest
natural frequency (35.55 Hz) can be associated with the ignition frequency of the generator, and
the second lowest frequency the rotational frequency of the engine (71.1 Hz), a running speed of
4266 RPM.
Further sound recording analysis yields the generator SWL spectra. A microphone calibration
factor is applied to the sum of the SPLs obtained from five different locations. This gives the SWL
of the generator which can be seen in Figure 132, which shows the generator A-weighted SWL
(dB), non A-weighted SWL (dBA) and background noise plots (dB). The A-weighting is applied to
sound spectra to simulate loudness as perceived by the human ear at specific frequencies [151].

Figure 132: A-weighted and non A-weighted SWLoof the generator compared to the SWL of back-
ground noise [152]
172 CHAPTER 10. BODY SHELL

It can be seen that relative to the total noise produced by the generator, the background noise is
insignificant. In the A-weighted SWL, the most significant noise contribution is due to the frequen-
cies between 400 - 4000 Hz. The intention is to reduce noise output of the locomotive, concentrat-
ing on this frequency band, with the addition of a shell.
The sound reduction index has been calculated for shells of different materials, and thickness;
1.5 mm aluminum, 3 mm aluminum and 3 mm fiberglass. Relative performances of each shell can
be seen in Figure 133. The SPLs at the microphone are calculated assuming that the generator
acts as a point source, and that the noise spreads as a hemisphere over rigid ground. The SPL at
the microphone for each shell is shown in Figure 134, along with a reference SPL in which no shell
is present. This was achieved utilising code adapted from a previous assignment: Noise Control
Engineering (ISVR 3064) [152].
Overall model results are displayed in Table 21, detailing modelled SPLs experienced by the
microphone, and the resonant frequencies of the shell panels.

70
3.0 mm Al
1.5 mm Al
60 3mm Fiber Glass

50
Reduction Index,(dB)

40

30

20

10

0
2 3 4
10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 133: Reduction index for the three shell options [152]

80
1.5 mm Al
3 mm Al
70
Sound Pressure Level Reciever (dBA)

No Shell (Control)
Fiber Glass 3mm
60

50

40

30

20

10
1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 134: One third octave band spectra SPL at receiver with different shells [152]

The model predicts a minimum SPL drop of 20 dBA, with particular shells performing better
than others. 1.5 mm aluminium yields the highest SPL reduction compared to the control.
Changing the thickness of aluminium from 1.5 mm to 3 mm increases the overall noise level
because the critical plate frequency drops from 5466 Hz to 2733 Hz. This has a negative impact
because 2733 Hz is within the region of the high amplitude frequencies present, whilst 5655 Hz
10.3. MATERIAL CHOICE 173

Material Critical Frequency (Hz) Microphone SPL (dBA)

1.5 mm aluminium 5466 54.7
3.0 mm aluminium 2733 55.7
3.0 mm fibreglass 5947 57.5
No shell N/A 77.9

Table 21: Critical frequencies and SPLs at the receiver for various shells

is above the this dominant frequency band. Fibreglass can be seen to be the least favourable
acoustic insulation material.
The noise reductions predicted are likely to be excessive, and in reality will be of a lower magni-
tude. This is due to simplifications of a complex situation, including the omission of certain features
such as ventilation access, and the open locomotive base. Due to the omitted features being con-
stant across each shell choice, it is likely that the relative performance of each shell holds true with
the predicted results. Therefore, the model can be used as a useful indicative tool for finding the
favourable shell design. In this case, it indicates that the most appropriate choice of shell material
for sound insulation purposes is 1.5 mm thick aluminium.

10.3 Material Choice CM HMF

Noise control is not the only consideration, however. Both manufacturability, and other in-service
considerations need to be addressed.
When considering manufacturing and modification ability, the facilities available for use, and the
ability to do so by team members is important. Although self-manufacture is one of the team’s
strong interests, the skill set required for locomotive shell manufacture should be limited where
possible to maximise production ease. Furthermore, the ability to make alterations post-production
is required. For this, being able to modify cut-outs in the shell is important. As a material, sheet
metal exhibits favourable characteristics of all the concerns listed, with the processes for manu-
facture limited to cutting, bending, boring and surface preparation. The facilities and the skill sets
required are possessed by the university and the team respectably.
Whilst in-service, the shell must be able to withstand inclement weather and environmental
conditions without deterioration. Materials based around iron have significant corrosion issues
and require the application of an appropriate coating. Other materials, such as aluminium have
favourable corrosion resistance due to the passivating nature of the surface oxide film which forms
on the surface. This tenacious oxide readily reforms a protective layer when removed by abrasive
means in the presence of oxygen. Therefore aluminium is the preferable material choice when
compared to others that suffer accelerated corrosion on the removal of protective coatings [153].
The properties of the material chosen must enable it to be structurally sound with minimal
support. This means it should not deform or buckle under its own weight. To achieve a desirably
high critical buckling load, a sufficiently thick of shell material is required, although this increases
the mass of the shell. Therefore, a compromise between weight saving and shell rigidity must be
met. The critical buckling load is proportional to the Young’s Modulus, E, and so a high specific
modulus is desirable. Other considerations contributing to material thickness include system sound
insulation properties (explored in Section 10.2.1), and the material cost.
After initial research, there were two options for shell construction to be explored: sheet metal
work or composite moulding. Sheet metal work can be performed using available university facilities
174 CHAPTER 10. BODY SHELL

without the need for additional training. Composite manufacture requires external aid. Fortunately,
a Southampton University graduate owns and operates his own composite fabrication facility, and
has offered his services. This option offers the additional opportunity for the group to gain hands-on
composite manufacturing skills.
For sheet metal, aluminium was determined to be the best choice, primarily due to its high
specific modulus [154], ease of manufacturability, and favourable sound insulation properties. Most
grades of aluminium would be sufficient, , but due to being work hardened, the 5xxx series exhibits
Lüders elongation bands (stretch marks) which cannot be painted over and so this grade should
be avoided. [155].
Fibreglass is an appropriate choice if the shell is to be moulded. It is a relatively common
composite material with a proven history in structural shell-type environments such as boat hulls
[156]. It has a low density, and by using wet lay-up manufacturing techniques, its thickness is
controllable to a low tolerance [157].

10.3.1 Aluminium vs. Fibreglass

Material Advantages Disadvantages

• Low density (2.7 g/cm3 )
• Good corrosion resistance due to formation of AlO2 passivation layer • Less aesthetically pleasing than a
• Good availability shell constructed from a mould
• Good workability • Can leave sharp edges, causing injury
Aluminium • Not susceptible to fracture or undesirable • Difficult to weld should complex form
damage when altered be required
• Easy to add venting slots • Prone to springback when bending
• Few outsource requirements • Plates amplify vibrations
• 100% recyclable
• Professional, aesthetically pleasing look is • Manufactured external to the university
more achievable • Easy to scratch
• Can be manufactured to almost any • Prone to fracture and cracks if holes
shape using a mould are drilled
Fibreglass
• Good corrosion resistance • Difficult to add slots
• High specific modulus, E/ρ • Not recyclable
• Ability to produce shell in one piece • Cost of making a mould
simplifies waterproofing • Time consuming to make

Table 22: Advantages and disadvantages of aluminium and fibreglass

Cost

In talks with the Southampton University alumnus, a quote was negotiated to construct one com-
plete shell (painted, vented, and with access panels) for £1500.
Based on frame dimensions of 2000mm × 600mm, and shelf height of 600 mm, a maximum of
three sheets of aluminium would be required to cover the locomotive adequately. At a rough cost
of between £30 - £50 per sheet (depending on thickness), three sheets should cost no more than
£150. As machining the sheets will be done ourselves, manufacturing costs would be negligible.
The other major costs attributed to a sheet metal shell are: the nuts and bolts required for shell-
frame interaction; sealing material (such as rubber) to provide waterproofing; and painting. These
expenses are approximately equivalent to the cost of the sheet metal. As a result, the sheet metal
shell is significantly cheaper to the fibreglass alternative.

Final Material Choice

Due to the lower cost and other consideration in Section 10.3.1, aluminium is the obvious shell ma-
terial choice. This decision is consistent with previous entries into the IMechE Railway Challenge,
of which the vast majority have also opted for aluminium constructions. Another deciding factor is
10.4. DESIGN DECISIONS 175

that aluminium is recyclable, whereas fibreglass is not. Competition entry requirements state that
95% of the locomotive components (by mass) must be recyclable. With a target locomotive mass
of 500 kg, only 25 kg of the train can be non-recyclable. Using a fibreglass shell would take up a
large proportion, if not all, of that allowance.
Most of the aluminium shell is 1.5 mm thick. Upon physical inspection of the material, it did
not collapse or deform under its own weight, and has been theoretically shown to provide superior
sound insulation than thicker sheets (see Section 10.2).

10.4 Design Decisions CM HMF

10.4.1 Weatherproofing
As with any vehicle, the locomotive must be proofed against inclement weather conditions that
could damage system functionality. The locomotive will not be expected to function in extreme con-
ditions but will be expected to operate in either heavy rain or high temperatures. Weatherproofing
measures taken in the shell design to ensure it is able to do so adequately are outlined below.

Waterproofing

To protect equipment that would be damaged should water gain access to the locomotive interior, a
number of design features including overhangs, rubber seals, louvred vents and tight dimensional
constraints are implemented.
Wherever a transition from the roof sheet to the side sheets of the shell exist, an overhang has
been used to eliminate the chance of water entering the locomotive between gaps in the panels.
This can be seen in Figures 135a and 135b, which show the two different overhang types used.
The design encourages the flow of water to be diverted outside of the aluminium side panels and
onto the floor. A 10 mm opening exists where the front and rear shell sections meet the roof of
the shell for ventilation purposes. Water access is restricted here by a larger 30 mm overhang
perpendicular to the opening, as seen in Figure 135a. This is in contrast to the overhang running
either side of roof, along the longitudinal length of the locomotive, which is tightly constrained to
allow neither ventilation or water access, as can be seen in Figure 135b. These plates are bolted
onto the frame, with a 45 mm overlap between the two sheets.
176 CHAPTER 10. BODY SHELL

(a) Front overhang 30 mm long, covering 10 mm wide (b) Side overhang of roof (blue) tightly
opening constrained to side panel (red)

Figure 135: Roof overhang variation

The louvred venting system used on the locomotive side panels also utilises overhanging edges
to retard water access, encouraging water run-off instead (Figure 130b). Tight waterproof seals are
also implemented where two sections of sheet metal meet. The rubber seals act as a hydrophobic
gap sealant.

Running in High Temperatures

For operation at high ambient temperatures, the locomotive shell has been designed in a modular
manner so that the system is capable of running without the roof, or part of the side panel assembly.
In addition to being able to provide additional cooling to contained components, running with certain
panels off also allows ease of access and insight to the internal running of the locomotive. To
ensure the necessary safety measures are still in place when this convenience feature is being
utilised, the emergency stop buttons are placed on the panels of the shell which are least likely to
be removed during running.

10.4.2 Access CM HMF

For convenience and ergonomics, a well engineered shell design considers not only the protection
and shielding of the space enclosed, but also the necessity for access to all areas and components
within. Due to the nature of the components within the shell, different regions have differing access
priorities. Frequent access is required to regions containing the generator and batteries to replen-
ish or replace respectively, whereas other regions, such as the myRIO or supercapacitor require
infrequent access.

Enabling Access

In order to accommodate the access requirements detailed above, the entire shell is removable
in individual elements due to its modular design, though some components need others to be
removed before they can be. This allows general access to all areas on the locomotive, and due
to the manageable size of each part, this can be achieved by an individual. Furthermore, the side
panels are assembled as three individual modules on each side, and are assembled in a way to
10.4. DESIGN DECISIONS 177

allow easy access to the generator from one side and the shelves from the other side (Figures 136
and 137). To allow the outermost plates to be removed without the others coming loose, the outer
plates incorporate oversized holes through which inner plates are independently secured.

Mounting of Ride Comfort Accelerometer and Stop Buttons

Several features of the shell require totally unrestricted access at all times, including the emergency
stop button and the accelerometer mounting point. One emergency stop button is mounted on
on the innermost plate each side of the locomotive. The IMechE specifications require that a
25 mm × 25 mm ferrous plate is mounted with unrestricted access on the locomotive structure [15].
The location chosen for this is on top of the roof, attached using a bolt through the aluminium sheet
into the extruded beam beneath.

Figure 136: Right side of locomotive displaying access to generator housing with middle panel
removed

Figure 137: Left side of locomotive displaying access to shelving units with end panels removed

10.4.3 Ventilation CM HMF

A number of heat sources exist on the locomotive, but the central section is the largest contributor,
and thus, of the greatest concern. Both the generator and the resistors are housed here. When
the resistors are used to drain the supercapacitor, a temperature of 150◦ C can be reached. Within
the locomotive system there exist a number of temperature sensitive components which would be
negatively affected if the temperature were to rise to this level. The battery and supercapacitor
life spans are particularly sensitive to raised temperatures. Battery life is reduced from 4 years at
standard room temperature (SRT) to 1 year at 50◦ C (Appendix E). At 65◦ C, the supercapacitor’s
expected life is reduced from 10 years at SRT to just 1500 hours (Appendix D). Other components
such as the motor controller and the myRIO both state that the ambient temperature should not
exceed 40◦ C. Faced with irrecoverably damaging critical components of the system, measures
must be taken in cooling the shell interior. Ventilation is also needed to clear the enclosed space of
toxic generator fumes, and to provide a fresh oxygen supply for its continued function.
178 CHAPTER 10. BODY SHELL

The ventilation openings in the front and back panel provide a through-flow of air when the lo-
comotive is in motion, extracting heat energy generated within the locomotive. Due to the tendency
of heat to rise, openings at the top of the locomotive allow the hot air to exit.
To encourage heat exchange, the bottom of the locomotive is left open. This enables the domi-
nant air flow regime to develop when in motion, be it bottom to top, along the top from front to back,
or a mixture of the two. When stationary the top openings will not act as an air intake, rather they
will act as an exhaust for the air heated within the shell which then goes on to rise via convection,
forming a passive cooling cycle of air entering the bottom, and leaving via the top openings.
Additional ventilation points exist on the side panels in the form of louvred vents (see Figure
130b), supplying location specific openings to allow fresh air and heat exchange. The locations
coincide with the shelving units and the generator housing, with one vent on each side panel,
totalling six.

10.4.4 Shell Shape CM HMF

Due to the nature and conditions of the Siemens sponsorship, the shell design had to be based on
a Siemens train. The exact model had to be either the Siemens 444 (Figure 138a) or the Siemens
450 (Figure 138b), because sponsorship originates from the local Siemens depot and not Siemens
global head quarters.

(a) Siemens 444 train at Northam depot (b) Siemens 450 train at Eastleigh train station

Figure 138: Two train models serviced by local Siemens depot

The overall shape for the two trains seems almost identical. The main difference seems to
be the actual positioning of the doors on the train - one optimised for long-haul express journeys
(Siemens 444), the other for stopping services (Siemens 450), and the colour scheme. As the
locomotive in this project has no good reason to have train doors similar to that of the full-size
Siemens train, this minor subtlety is of little concern. The front of the two models, however, look
identical, which will be the only paint scheme replicated as close to accurately as possible. The
sides have sponsorship logos along with features such as venting and safety buttons.

10.5 Final Design CM HMF

The design considerations listed throughout this section have been combined to create a complete
shell for the locomotive. This shell incorporates the use of aluminium sheet metal arranged in a
shape that resembles the Siemens 450 design as closely as possible, whilst maintaining required
functionality and ease of manufacture. The final design is shown with desired colour decals in
Figure 139.
10.5. FINAL DESIGN 179

Figure 139: Final shell design CAD model

11. Build Area and Rig
Due to the size and nature of the project, arrangements had to be made for not only build space in
which to construct the sizeable locomotive but also a building rig to support the train wheels and
raise the locomotive to a comfortable working height.

11.1 Build Space MC

Construction of the locomotive occurred in a designated area in the electromechanical lab in build-
ing 7 (Lanchester), see Figure 140a. Arrangements were made early on in the project to organise a
sizeable area of lab space to accommodate the anticipated 3 m long, 1 m wide and 1 m tall 500 kg
locomotive such as to allow up to 12 group members to work on it.

(a) Lab space utilised to construct the loco- (b) Actual 3 m long, 10.25" gauge track pan-
motive els used for the project

Figure 140: Miniature railway track and locomotive

Lockable storage for both parts and tools were also arranged by the lab supervisor Tim Hartley.
Due to the anticipated competition participation, the team were also required to obtain all the nec-
essary tools for both building and fixing of the locomotive where required. This does, however, set
up the project incredibly well for future years should it be rerun, which it almost certainly will be.

11.2 Build Rig MC

The design and construction of the build rig is a minor part of the project but has huge impact on
how easily the locomotive is accessed and also potential impact on the way in which the locomotive
is moved from build to a test site.

11.2.1 Track Panels

In order to be able to begin constructing the locomotive, a build rig was required. The first require-
ment for this was to source lengths of railway track which would support but not damage the wheels
once manufactured. Traditionally, railway track is purchased as a number of parts including lengths
of rail, sleepers to support the rail, fishbolts and fishplates to connect rail lengths and either steel
chocks or pandrol clips to secure the rails to the sleepers. An alternative which can be purchased
at miniature gauges are track panels, lengths of pre-assembled rail including rail, sleeper and con-
nections. One such supplier, Scaleway Signals, regularly supply track panels for use by IMechE
Railway Competition entrants in order to support their locomotives during build and to allow teams
to easily and quickly test their locomotives locally. The style of track panel purchased for the project
and used as a starting point for the build rig is shown in Figure 140b .

180
11.2. BUILD RIG 181

11.2.2 Build Rig Design

The main purpose of the build rig is that it both support the track panels such as not to damage
the locomotive wheels and raise the locomotive to a comfortable working height for construction. It
had to achieve both of these criteria whilst being stable & safe for the worst case loaded weight of
600 kg whilst still allowing access to areas such as the underside of the bogies. Initially a box frame
of sorts was envisaged, constructed of either steel or using the same Bosch Rexroth aluminium
profile as was used in the rest of the locomotive. For ease of modification by future teams and the
ability to construct the build rig in the limited lab area, Bosch Rexroth 45mm aluminium profile was
selected for build rig construction.
Build rig dimensions were largely determined by the dimensions of the locomotive itself and, as
such, the build rig design did not occur until many months into the project. At the time of design,
the major locomotive dimensions were approximately 2 m long by 0.6 m wide by 1 m high. As the
locomotive major length was around 2 m, the actual end to end distance of the wheels was closer
to 1.8 m. As such, one of the 3 m track panels was disassembled and the rail lengths reduced
to 2 m. This was largely to maximise the availability of space in the lab area and to remove the
unnecessary track length from the panel. The build rig had to be longer than the 2 m long track
panel in order to contain it and to prevent other lab users contacting the track panel unintentionally.
A build frame width of at least 0.6 m was aimed for and it was intended to raise the locomotive
wheels to a height of 0.8 m for ergonomic reasons. Total locomotive mass was estimated to be
around 420 kg based on the specifications of major components, this included a worst case 70 kg
for the shell. Combined with a track panel mass of around 40 kg, this generated a real-world load
mass of around 490 kg or 4.9 kN. As such, the frame was designed to be safe in a worst case
loading condition of 6 kN to offer a factor of safety over the intended load mass.
Having reduced a track panel from 3 m long to 2 m long, the sleepers were redistributed along
the length of the rail. This gave rise to a 2 m rail length with seven equidistantly spaced sleepers
securing them. With the sleepers redistributed, the track panel was modelled in CAD and the
locomotive placed above the rail as shown in Figure 141. This was so that the approximate force
transmission from the locomotive wheels through the sleepers and subsequently the build frame
could be assessed. As shown in Figure 141, the majority of the loading occurs through sleepers
1, 3, 5 and 7 on the track panel. With this known, the build rig was subsequently designed to be
strengthened at these positions.

Figure 141: CAD model of track panel with locomotive assembly

With the positions of loading roughly known, the next consideration for build rig construction
was connector strength for the aluminium frame. The gussets (right angled connectors) selected
182 CHAPTER 11. BUILD AREA AND RIG

for the build frame were the standard 45 mm Bosch Rexroth gussets. The maximum loading of the
gussets as recommended by Bosch Rexroth are indicated in Figure 120a on page 161. Assuming
a worst case loading of 6 kN spread across the four sleepers and so through eight upright gussets,
it was clear even a small moment arm would load the gussets dangerously close to the maximum
recommended bending moment. Based on the recommended loadings of the gussets, efforts were
made to load the beams beneath the sleepers in such a way that the gusset load was minimised.
The build rig concept that was designed is shown below in Figure 142 in various loaded and
unloaded conditions.
In order to validate the build rig as indicated in Figure 142, FEA was carried out. The geometry
was broken down into elements to form a mesh, loading conditions, connections and fixtures were
then set and the results analysed. Rigid connections were used to simulate the gussets as this
is the closest match to their mechanical behaviour. Split lines were drawn onto the faces of the
beams which would contact the gussets in order to more closely replicate the gusset behaviour.
Initially FEA was attempted on the entire build rig geometry as indicated in Figure 142f. The mate-
rial specified for all beams was Aluminium 6063 T6 as indicated by the frame catalogue technical
specifications [147]. The purple arrows represent the load condition which was set to a worst case
total of 6 kN combined across the loaded sleepers, the green arrows represent the fixtures which
in this case would be the floor mounts on the lower face of the rig. Blue arrows represent the rigid
connections modelled between the frame faces to replicate the behaviour of the gussets. Unfortu-
nately problems were encountered when meshing such a large assembly. The main issue was that
the manufacturer-provided Bosch Rexroth aluminium profile CAD features the intricate geometry of
the inner sections, requiring a fine mesh in order to successfully mesh certain beams. Combined
with such a large geometry, the required fine mesh proved a problem for the limited computing
power both using university computers and personal computers at home. Due to regularly exceed-
ing the available memory of the machines and general SolidWorks instability, a compromise was
sought.
In order to still be able to simulate the build rig under the loading conditions, the rig geometry
was split into quarters. As the loading is symmetrical across the rig, this seemed a fair compromise.
It should be noted that there will be differences in the exact stress/displacement figures as a beam
which is simply supported at both ends deflects less than a cantilever beam of half the length.
As such, the build rig geometry was split into quarters. Figure 143a indicates the FEA setup with
the loading having been reduced to 1.5 kN total across the purple arrows. Figure 143b and 143c
indicate the results of the study. Figure 143b, showing a von Mises stress plot of the assembly,
indicates a factor of safety of around 2.43. It should be remembered that the simulated results will
be distinctly worse than the real life performance of the entire frame and, as such, the build frame
was validated as fit for purpose. In order to confirm that splitting the structure into quarters would
still provide safe results, the structure was modelled using beam theory. For a cantilever beam of
length L subjected to a load W , Young’s Modulus E and second moment of area I the maximum
deflection is given by [37]:
WL3
νmaximum = (11.2.1)
3EI
and maximum bending moment, BM is given by [37]:

BMmaximum = WL. (11.2.2)

11.2. BUILD RIG 183

(a) Isometric view of build rig geometry without (b) Right view of build rig geometry without
sleeper and locomotive sleeper and locomotive

(c) Isometric view of build rig geometry with (d) Isometric view of build rig geometry with
sleeper and locomotive sleeper and locomotive

(e) Close-up view of build rig and sleeper showing

frame arrangement beneath loaded sleeper (f) Entire build rig as setup for FEA

Figure 142: Build rig design

184 CHAPTER 11. BUILD AREA AND RIG

For a beam which is fixed at both ends and subject to a central loading of W, the maximum deflec-
tion is given by [37]:
WL3
νmaximum = (11.2.3)
192EI
and maximum bending moment, BM is given by [37]:

WL
BMmaximum = . (11.2.4)
8

In order to simplify the FEA, it was proposed that the overall structure be split into quarters such
L W
that the width-ways support beams were of length 2 and the load was reduced to 2 . In the
simplified structure the beams were modelled as cantilevers with half the length and half of the
load. Substituting these values into 11.2.1 and 11.2.2 leads to:

W L 3
2 (2) WL
νmaximum = = (11.2.5)
3EI 48

and maximum bending moment, BM is given by:

W L WL
BMmaximum = = . (11.2.6)
2 2 4

Relating stress σ, bending moment BM, thickness y and second moment of area I by using [37]:

BMy
σ= (11.2.7)
I

it is observed that for constant values of y and I, the stress σ is linearly proportional to the bending
moment BM. Comparing the cantilever deflection and max bending moment for the simplified case
as in Equations 11.2.5 and 11.2.6 with the actual cases as in Equations 11.2.3 and 11.2.4 it is
easy to see that the actual case has a greatly reduced maximum deflection (factor of four) and
maximum bending moment (factor of two), and so stress. As such, it can be assumed that if the
simplified FEA structure is proven safe, the actual structure is more than sufficient for the required
loadings.

11.2.3 Build Rig Construction

With the build rig design validated, the frame was then constructed using the specified Bosch
Rexroth aluminium frame and gussets as shown in Figure 144. The track panel is shown resting on
top of the build rig before it was secured using stainless steel cable ties. Also shown are the Bosch
Rexroth self-adjusting feet which were inserted into the lower eight faces of the support beams
which were subsequently tapped with an M12 thread.
11.2. BUILD RIG 185

Figure 144: Build rig as constructed in the lab

11.2.4 Build Rig Protective Covers HMF

Upon construction of the build rig, attention was drawn to sharp corners and edges on the ends of
the aluminium extrusion - artefacts of cutting saw action.
Due to the prominent positioning of the build rig at the faculty design show, at which it is within
reach of visitors, including young children, it became apparent that safety precautions were re-
quired.
To avoid time consuming de-burring, protective end-caps, as can be seen in Figure 145a were
3D printed. PLA was chosen over the alternative ABS due to the higher compressive strength
of PLA, allowing a more secure and permanent interference fit with the aluminium end profile.
Designing and printing the end caps was deemed preferable to purchasing comparable products
due to time constraints (from idea conception to design show) and significant cost savings.
The protective caps can be seen in place in Figure 145b.

(a) 3D printed aluminium profile cover (b) End profile cover in place on build rig

Figure 145: Build frame laceration protection

186 CHAPTER 11. BUILD AREA AND RIG

(a) FEA setup

(b) Von Mises stress plot

(c) Displacement plot

Figure 143: Build rig FEA study having split the geometry into a quarter of actual layout
12. Design Summary MC

Based on the combined efforts of all team members, the project has successfully delivered a func-
tioning miniature locomotive (Figure 146) with the means to recover energy from the braking pro-
cess. A short summary of each subsystem is detailed below (further details can be found in the
respective technical chapters):

• Bogies Two identical bogies, each featuring two driven wheelsets (Figure 147), have been
designed and assembled. The wheels are 250 mm in diameter, manufactured from EN8
(medium carbon steel) and dimensions as specified by the IMechE. Each wheelset features
a multi-spline axle to aid design flexibility in future years, two wheels, a brake disc and a 50
tooth sprocket for driving. Integration of brake and traction systems has been carried out
along with the attachment of the bogies to the main locomotive frame by a flanged turntable
bearing. A primary suspension system comprising two coil springs per bearing adapter pair
(or four coil springs per wheelset) has been implemented to reduce vibration. See Figure 148.
• Brakes A vacuum brake system has been specified, designed, tested and integrated into
the bogie design along with a means to manually release and reapply the brakes in accor-
dance with the IMechE Railway Challenge requirements by using a hand-held vacuum pump.
Solenoids in the brake loop, controlled by the myRIO, are used to actuate the brake cylinder
which is connected to mechanical go-kart brakes by a mechanical linkage.
• Electronics & Control A wide range of electronics and control systems across a number
of other subsystems have been modelled, designed, tested and integrated throughout the
entire locomotive. A large number of parts have been selected, purchased and implemented
including the selection of a suitable motor controller with an energy recovery mode of op-
eration. A National Instruments myRIO microcontroller has been programmed in LabVIEW
to connect the various subsystems together. Locomotive control occurs remotely by a Wi-Fi
link between a tablet running a National Instruments Dashboard app and the Wi-Fi hotspot
myRIO. Subsystems controlled include:

– Sensing (fire detection in the form of heat sensors, speed monitoring by use of a hall
effect sensor)
– Brake system including control of the vacuum pump, solenoid actuation, pressure sens-
ing
– Energy recovery including the charging of the supercapacitor by switching the mode of
operation of the motor controller, monitoring of the charge level of said supercapacitor
and subsequently discharging the supercapacitor across the motor terminals
– Emergency stop systems
– Traction including motor controller speed variation, swapping of drive/energy recovery
modes and limiting speed in accordance with IMechE requirements.
• Energy Recovery A supercapacitor system allowing for the energy recovered from the wheels
during braking to be stored for use at a later time to drive the locomotive forwards has been
implemented.
• Frame A ladder frame has been designed and calculations & FEA studies carried out to
confirm suitability for the mounting of all other components including bogies and shell. A
prototyping aluminium grooved frame has been selected in order to make future modifications

187
188 CHAPTER 12. DESIGN SUMMARY

to the frame simpler. Shelving units have been added to the frame for storage of electronic
components such as batteries, motor controller and supercapacitor.
• Shell An aluminium plate shell exterior has been designed to bolt onto the existing frame
shelving units. It is envisaged the plates will be powder coated for aesthetics and sealed for
weatherproofing.
• Traction Two Lynch LEM170 DC motors were selected for use based on numerical models
of power requirements of the locomotive and a review of alternative options. A monomotor
design sharing one motor between two wheelsets has been designed and geared at a 5:1
ratio to reduce the motor RPM to a more suitable locomotive speed in-line with the technical
requirements. A petrol generator was selected for use as the primary energy source and
efforts made to isolate the vibrations throughout the locomotive.

Figure 146: The assembled locomotive as tested at Eastleigh

Figure 147: Close-up of locomotive wheelset showing driven sprocket and disc brake
 189

Figure 148: Isometric view of the bogie CAD assembly

Figure 149: Isometric view of the entire locomotive CAD assembly

Figure 150: Side view of the assembled locomotive

13. Testing
13.1 Jacking Performance DH
During testing the jacking system was used to move the frame outside of the lab for system inte-
gration testing. At this point in the build the wheelsets and most of the traction systems were not
attached to the bogies, as seen in Figure 126b. During this initial testing the jockey wheels were
attached on the same side as the angle brackets. During certain alighnments of the jockey wheels
the jacking assembly began to move away from the frame, only being supported by the t-bolts
attched underneath. To alleviate this the jockey wheels were then attached to the opposite side to
ensure the moments would create favourable loading contitions for the t-bolts.

13.2 Locomotive Test Run MC

During the final few days of the project, the locomotive (less the shell) was transported to Eastleigh
Lakeside Railway to undergo a full rolling test over two days. Despite the track panels available
to the team for local testing, the Eastleigh visit provided the opportunity to test out the jacking
system, locomotive performance on bends & over points (identified as a potential risk to competition
success) and also sustained locomotive performance at speed and with a trailing load.
Due to delays as a result of orders placed through Siemens, the generator and power supply
were only received by the team a week in advance of the test. The sprockets required for the
drivetrain and gearing had still not arrived on the Friday afternoon before the scheduled Monday
test. Temporary sprockets were sourced from a local supplier, allowing the locomotive to be tested
initially with one (on the Monday) driven wheelset and subsequently two driven wheelsets on the
Tuesday.

13.2.1 Transporting the Locomotive MC

In order to test the locomotive at Eastleigh Railway, suitable transportation had to be organised to
satisfy the considerable mass and volume requirements. With the jacking system designed roughly
around the dimensions of a standard size Luton van tail lift, campus porters were contacted to see
if they were able to move the locomotive. Due to being unable to safely locate the locomotive on the
tail lift with the jacking system, it was instead loaded directly from the (slightly raised) build frame
onto a track panel in the van as shown in Figure 151.

190
13.2. LOCOMOTIVE TEST RUN 191

Figure 151: The locomotive being loaded into the van

13.2.2 Initial Coupler DH

During testing a preliminary coupler design was used due to the lower (5" above rail height) con-
nection present at Eastleigh Lakeside Railway, compared to IMechE competition requirements for
Stapleford Miniature Railway.
After arriving, the coupler height was lowered by 45 mm using gussets connected under the
headstock beam as can be seen in Figure 152a. An angled drawbar was then attached to allow
carriages to be connected at the correct height as shown in Figure 152b. The use of gussets will
be an easier method for arriving at the correct coupler height and further work will explore this
possibility.
During initial track testing the coupler rode up and down the connecting pin during accelerating
and braking. This seemed to add extra stresses to the assembly and so locating sleeves were
added to locate the drawbar in place. For the final connector pin, a step design could be used to
ensure the drawbar is located in place.
Given the load pulled during testing far exceeded that for the competition, it was reassuring that
a temporary coupler was able to withstand the forces involved. The lessons outlined above will be
incorporated into the final coupler design which will be manufactured before the Railway Challenge.

(a) The locating sleeve used to constrain the (b) Drawbar as fabricated for coupling at
drawbar Eastleigh

Figure 152: Drawbar images from Eastleigh Testing

192 CHAPTER 13. TESTING

13.2.3 Energy Recovery Testing CL PN

Supercapacitor Application CL
The full scale locomotive test proved that the supercapacitor can recover energy when the locomo-
tive decelerates, then assist the generator and SMPS to deliver additional power.
When the locomotive was tasked to decelerate, the ERS was automatically applied prior to
friction braking. During deceleration the supercapacitor’s initial voltage of 40 V was seen to rise
by approximately 1 V. The switch mode power supply was then shut down and the locomotive was
able to move only by power supplied by the supercapacitor. However, the efficiency of the system
cannot yet be quantified due to insufficient data logging equipment.
A current was drawn from both the generator and supercapacitor when tasking the locomotive
to accelerate. When the locomotive accelerated with a trailing load, the voltage across the super-
capacitor was seen to drop by approximately 1 - 2 V. The supercapacitor’s voltage was seen to rise
back to it’s fully charged state when the locomotive was travelling at constant velocity. These sim-
ple observations proved that the ERS system can deliver power and recover energy with minimal
operator interaction.

Soft Charge PN
Part of the testing included using the soft charging circuit for the supercapacitor. The SMPS output
a voltage of 40.6 V through a 1 Ω resistor. Once the supercapacitor voltage reached 37 V the
soft charge resistor was bypassed. The recorded results of this test (Figure 153a) were compared
with those from a representative Simulink model (Figure 153b) and found to be almost identical.
Simulations provide safe testing, and future work can now be undertaken to identify the optimal
state of charge at which the resistor can be bypassed.

(b) Circuit used when charging the superca-

(a) Power supplied by the generator pacitor

Figure 153: Soft charging results and circuit diagram

13.2.4 Driven Test MC

During the two days of testing at Eastleigh, the locomotive was driven with a single wheelset fol-
lowed by two wheelsets the next day. Initially the locomotive was driven at low speeds and with no
trailing load but, as testing progressed, it was pushed to speeds of up to 13 km/h with a significant
trailing load. In one particular instance, the locomotive pulled three carriages (each with a mass of
around 150 kg) and most of the team (assumed total mass of approximately 700 kg) up a maximum
incline of 1:40. As this was the first rolling test the locomotive had undergone, as it to be expected,
there were a number of teething problems and observations made by the project team. These are
13.2. LOCOMOTIVE TEST RUN 193

outlined in the following sections.

Electronics & Control Observations

During testing the electronics & control systems on board the locomotive were all largely functional.
A number of observations were made during testing including:

• The integrated system, which had been bench tested before integration into the locomotive,
performed as intended
• It was observed that the supercapacitor soft charge resistor could be bypassed in order to
reduce the time taken to charge said supercapacitor
• The myRIO could not be programmed such as to run the VI independently of the laptop and
so the laptop had to remain connected for the duration of testing
• No fuses were blown, circuits shorted or cables cut, suggesting the overall system is safe in
operation as expected
• The two lead-acid batteries were used over both days with sufficient charge, confirming they
are suitable for the system requirements.

Mechanical Observations

As well as the electronics & control aspects of the locomotive, testing provided the opportunity to
make a number of observations around the mechanical side of the project. These included the
following points:

• It was noticed that the current suspension arrangement (springs located too close to one
another and the lockout plate slots insufficiently constraining the wheelsets) lead to twisting
of the wheelsets relative to the frame mounts. This is recommended as an area for future
work.
• During testing problems were encountered with the stretching of the chain between motor
and axle sprockets. As the sprockets used in testing were not the sprockets the locomotive
was designed for, the team are confident such issues will be alleviated once the intended
sprockets are installed.
• Mechanical systems generally performed well, as anticipated
• One of the brake calliper mounts visibly deformed after use with a larger-than-expected trail-
ing load. This is likely due to a reduced number of operating brake callipers during testing,
compared to the number intended for use, leading to larger braking forces transmitted through
the bracket.
• The motor mount was observed to twist relative to its mounting position under tension from
the drivetrain, indicating further constraint in the attachment is required
• The bogie-frame bearings, which had a concerning amount of play during assembly, were
sufficiently constrained by using nylon blocks at either side of the frame where said bearings
were mounted.

Overall, locomotive testing at Eastleigh Railway was a real success with systems, generally, per-
forming as intended. The testing provided the opportunity for the team to observe the performance
of the locomotive on a purpose-built railway line and areas for further work, in preparation for the
Railway Challenge, were identified as a result. Figure 154 shows some images of the locomotive
during testing.
194 CHAPTER 13. TESTING

(a) Stationary locomotive before testing

(b) Locomotive with trailing load

(c) Locomotive with largest trailing load during testing

Figure 154: Locomotive during testing at Eastleigh Lakeside Miniature Railway

14. Future Work
Contained within this section are a number of aspects of future work for the project. These have
been separated into a mixture of planned activities for the current team occurring after report hand-
in but before the 2015 competition and suggested further work for future teams.

14.1 Anticipated Changes for Railway Challenge 2015

Work aspects outlined below are intended activities for the current team, occurring in advance of
the IMechE 2015 competition.

• Bogies

– More extensive suspension testing on actual locomotive

– Implement a more permanent solution to the bracing of the inner wheel
– Explore design changes which could improve performance in the maintainability chal-
lenge
• Brakes

– Optimise the cylinder-calliper interaction

– Testing of brake emergency stop system
• Electronics & Control

– Implementation of remote control disconnect emergency stop behaviour

– Addition of low voltage disconnect units and battery current measuring circuit to battery
monitoring system
– VI refinement and fine-tuning of control system
• Energy Recovery

– Comparison of actual distance travelled by locomotive under regenerated braking energy

compared to the Simulink model’s prediction
– Develop supercapacitor temperature monitoring system
– Optimise charging of supercapacitor
• Frame

– Manufacture drawbar for competition

– Confirm design and manufacture coupler
– Incorporate damping materials to reduce vibration transferred through frame
• Shell

– Shell manufacture
– Testing and optimisation of noise damping performance
• Traction

– Fit the ordered (but not received at time of submission) sprockets and so final drivetrain
system
– Optimise acceleration rates using the motor controller.

195
196 CHAPTER 14. FUTURE WORK

14.2 Recommended Work for Future Teams

Work aspects outlined below are activities the current team have identified but do not expect to be
able to carry out before the 2015 IMechE Railway Challenge:

• Bogies

– Investigate secondary suspension

– Add damping to suspension
• Brakes

– Add a reservoir between pump and rest of system

– Add a pressure sensor on-line with the hose to monitor the vacuum pressure in the
system
• Electronics & Control

– Automated battery charging algorithms using myRIO

– Closed loop motor control (feedback loop) with RPM sensor
• Energy Recovery

– Refine the voltage parameters for supercapacitor charging

• Frame

– Possibly rearrange components on shelves for a more efficient design

– Incorporate damping measures to reduce structural noise path transmission
• Shell

– Computational fluids analysis to optimise ventilation location

– Efforts to reduce total noise emissions
– Explore possibility of making a fibreglass shell for use at university open days and other
events such as those in Figure 155a and 155b

(a) CAD concept model of Siemens 450 (b) CAD concept model of Siemens 444
class train class train

Figure 155: Potential future shell designs

• Traction

– Investigate plausibility of using a fuel cell as the primary energy source of the locomotive
for greatly improved noise and vibration performance.
15. Conclusions MC

A 10¼" gauge miniature locomotive incorporating a number of subsystems has been successfully
designed, manufactured, assembled and tested to comply with a technical specification as provided
by the IMechE for the Railway Challenge competition.
There have been number of issues which the team have encountered throughout the project,
namely:

• Lead times for components which were much longer than expected
• Lead times and import charges for components ordered from overseas
• Considerable lead times for work which was submitted through the EDMC (parts submitted
mid-December were finished mid-March)
• Delays and extra expense incurred as a result of the axles complicated keyway design which,
in hindsight, should have been a simple ISO keyway but wasn’t known about at the time
• Minor repetition of work where team members’ activities are not communicated sufficiently
clearly to the rest of the team
• Manufacturing issues due to inexperience of team members in having designs manufactured.
Tolerancing and machining capability in particular.
• Considerable delays as a result of ordering components through Siemens (industrial spon-
sor). Notably an RS order which took around 10 weeks to arrive and a sprocket order which
took around 6 weeks to arrive, both of which should have arrived within a maximum of 2
weeks.

As one of the largest GDP groups, the team have successfully worked together in a limited time
frame to construct a functional locomotive. Further work has been recommended for activities after
the report deadline in preparation for the Railway Challenge competition, and also for next year’s
project team. The efforts of the current team have resulted in a functional and flexible initial locomo-
tive, allowing subsequent teams to optimise the existing design and control systems. Infrastructure
such as the means to safely raise the locomotive to an ergonomic height for construction, ability
to move the locomotive once at floor level and track panels to allow local testing of the locomotive
have all been designed or acquired as needed. Strong connections have been forged with: East-
leigh Lakeside Railway for testing & advice; the IMechE for subsequent competition entries and
local companies such as Clarke Lane Engineering. As well as attracting attention across the whole
of the engineering faculty, the project has drawn particular interest from the Dean of Engineering,
Professor William Powrie, been used for a science and engineering open day in collusion with the
Track 21 project and will be shown at the inaugural faculty design show in June. Finally, the team
successfully applied for and won a “rookie team grant” from the IMechE (for entry into the Railway
Challenge) to the value of £1,500 which is to be used in addition to the basic GDP budget for next
year’s team.
The project has provided a fantastic learning experience for all involved and the team both hope
and expect that the optimisation of the current miniature locomotive design will exist as a GDP for
many years to come.

197
Bibliography

[1] C. Wolmar, Fire and Steam: A New History of the Railways in Britain. Atlantic Books,
Limited, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4xkAIW_4ydAC

[2] J. Harvey, N. Thorpe, M. Caygill, and A. Namdeo, “Public attitudes to and perceptions of
high speed rail in the UK,” Transport Policy, vol. 36, no. 0, pp. 70 – 78, 2014. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X14001541

[3] BBC. High-speed rail’s long journey. [Online]. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

uk-16473296

[4] D. MacKay, Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air, ser. Without the Hot Air Series. UIT,
2009. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IsgiPQAACAAJ

[5] Ten and a Quarter Inch Railway Society. UK miniature railways. [Online]. Available:
http://www.tenquarter.org/public-railways/

[6] Eastleigh Lakeside Steam Railway. History and line. [Online]. Available: http://www.
steamtrain.co.uk/history

[7] Stapleford Miniature Railway. History. [Online]. Available: http://www.fsmr.org.uk/history.html

[8] IMechE. Railway challenge. [Online]. Available: http://www.imeche.org/railwaychallenge

[9] J. A. Lozano, J. Félez, J. d. Dios Sanz, and J. M. Mera, Railway Traction. InTech.

[10] R. Beardmore. (2013) Fluid Power/Pneumatics. [Online]. Available: http://www.roymech.co.

uk/Related/pneumatics_hydraulics.html

[11] J. F. Sarnicola. (2012) Advantages of hydraulics for motion bases.

[Online]. Available: http://hydraulicspneumatics.com/hydraulic-pumps-amp-motors/
advantages-hydraulics-motion-bases

[12] Apogee Interactive Inc. (2013) Electric Motor Advantages and Disadvantages. [Online].
Available: http://c03.apogee.net/contentplayer/?coursetype=md&utilityid=elpaso&id=12539

[13] T. F. S Iwnicki. (2015, Mar) Institution of mechanical engineers railway challenge rules.

[14] R. Bansal, A Textbook of Fluid Mechanics. Laxmi Publications Pvt Limited, 2005. [Online].
Available: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FzQz6A6SnyoC

[15] T. Poole. (2015, feb) Institution of mechanical engineers railway challenge technical spec-
ification. [Online]. Available: http://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/railway-challenge/
railway-challenge-2015-technical-specification-issue-1.pdf

[16] C. Barkan. (2007) Railroad transportation energy efficiency. [Online]. Available: http:
//www.istc.illinois.edu/about/SeminarPresentations/20091118.pdf

198
BIBLIOGRAPHY 199

[17] Railway Technical Pages. (2014) Electric traction drives. [Online]. Available: http:
//www.railway-technical.com/drives.shtml

[18] Bluebird Electric. (2014) Image of Agni-Lynch Motor. [On-

line]. Available: http://www.bluebird-electric.net/blueplanet_ecostar/blueplanet_images/
AGNI-LYNCH-EMS-MOTOR-DC-10-KW.jpg

[19] Robot Marketplace. (2014) Image of Etek Motor. [Online]. Available: http://www.
robotmarketplace.com/products/images/store_brushlessetek_lg.jpg

[20] Robot Marketplace. (2014) Image of Perm Motor. [Online]. Available: http://www.
robotmarketplace.com/products/images/store_permmotors_lg.jpg

[21] Anonymous. (2015) Epicyclic gearbox. [Online]. Available: http://cfnewsads.thomasnet.com/

images/large/023/23636.jpg

[22] Renold. Wheels and Sprockets: Designer Guide. [Online]. Available: http://www.renold.com/
UploadedFiles/Brochure_Sprockets.pdf

[23] Utility Free Living. (2015) Image of UFLDC3000S. [Online]. Available: http://www.
utilityfreeliving.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Silent-3kW-DC-Generator-named-3.png

[24] Alphagen. (2014) Image of Alphagen DCX3000. [Online]. Available: http://www.alphachina.

com.cn/en/userimages/200811291250537775.jpg

[25] Evopower. (2014) Image of Evopower EVO3000EI. [On-

line]. Available: https://evopower.co.uk/86-thickbox_default/
evopower-evo3000ei-2800w-electric-and-remote-start-suitcase-inverter-generator.jpg

[26] RS Components. (2015) Image of RS-3000 SMPS. [Online]. Available: http://img-europe.

electrocomponents.com/largeimages/F6741669-01.jpg

[27] H. Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis. Walter Scott Publishing Co. Ltd, 1952.

[28] Encyclopedia Britannica. (2014) Conservation of energy. [Online]. Available: http:

//www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/187240/conservation-of-energy

[29] Flybrid Automotive Limited. (2014) Original f1 system. [Online]. Available: http:
//www.flybridsystems.com/F1System.html

[30] D. Conway, Supercapacitor 108 Success Secrets. Emereo Publishing, 2014.

[31] A. Delaney. (2008) Hydraulic hybrids. [Online]. Available: http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/

2008/20/hydraulic-hybrids-0820.cfm

[32] National Academy of Sciences. (2008) What you need to know about energy. [Online].
Available: http://www.nap.edu/reports/energy/sources.html

[33] Y. Gogotsi and P. Simon, “True performance metrics in electrochemical energy storage,”
Science Magazine, vol. 334, no. 6058, pp. 917 – 918, 2011. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6058/917

[34] D. Ragone, “Review of battery systems for electrically powered vehicles,” SAE, Tech. Rep.
200 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[35] H. L. H. Satish Samineni, Brian K. Johnson and J. D. Law, “Modeling and analysis of
a flywheel energy storage system for voltage sag correction,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS
ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 42 – 52, 2006. [Online]. Available:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=1583828

[36] G. G. Portnov and V. L. Kulakov, “Breakdown of flywheels made of composite materials

due to unwinding,” Mechanics of Composite Materials, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 409 – 414, 1979.
[Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00605868

[37] J. R. Calvert and R. A. Farrar, An engineering data book, 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2008.

[38] J. Hampl, “Concept of the mechanically powered gyrobus,” Transactions on Transport Sci-
ences, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 27 – 38, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/
trans.2013.6.issue-1/v10158-012-0029-9/v10158-012-0029-9.xml?rskey=beFtyU&result=2

[39] J. Hanna. (2014) Flywheel electromechanical batteries. [Online]. Available: https:

//technology.grc.nasa.gov/tech-detail-coded.php?cid=GR-0045

[40] S. Nathan. (2012) Grid-connected energy storage: a new piece in the uk en-
ergy puzzle. [Online]. Available: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/the-big-story/
grid-connected-energy-storage-a-new-piece-in-the-uk-energy-puzzle/1014536.article

[41] A. M. Saurabh Singal, Kapil Parikh, “Design and simulation of flywheel energy
storage an alternative to ups batteries,” Progress in Science and Engineering,
vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 52 – 61, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://piserjournal.org/2014/11/
design-simulation-of-flywheel-energy-storage-an-alternative-to-ups-batteries/

[42] Synchrony. (2015) How magnetic bearings work. [Online]. Available: http://www.synchrony.
com/knowledge/how-magnetic-bearings-work.php

[43] C. Haisheng, N. C. Thang, Y. Wei, T. Chunqing, L. Yongliang, and D. Yulong, “Progress in

electrical energy storage system: A critical review,” Progress in Natural Science, vol. 19,
no. 3, pp. 291 – 312, 2011.

[44] EPA. (2013) Hydraulic hybrid vehicles. [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/

hydraulic-hybrid/

[45] P. H. Corp. (2015) Hydraulic accumulators. [Online]. Available: http:

//www.parker.com/portal/site/PARKER/menuitem.7100150cebe5bbc2d6806710237ad1ca/
?vgnextoid=f5c9b5bbec622110VgnVCM10000032a71dacRCRD&vgnextfmt=default&
vgnextcatid=3172&vgnextcat=HYDRAULIC+ACCUMULATORS

[46] HYDAC. (2015) Hydraulic accumulators. [Online]. Available: http://www.hydac.com/de-en/

products/hydraulic-accumulators/show/Overview/index.html

[47] Y. Çengel, Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer. McGraw-Hill, 2008.

[48] J. Zhang, L. Zhang, H. Liu, A. Sun, and R. Liu, Electrochemical Technologies for Energy
Storage and Conversion. Wiley, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://books.google.co.uk/books?
id=AN3B3L5RtqUC
BIBLIOGRAPHY 201

[49] J. Wharton, “Electrochemical corrosion measurements,” University Lecture, 2014.

[50] S. Liu, L. Xiong, and C. He, “Long cycle life lithium ion battery with lithium nickel cobalt
manganese oxide (ncm) cathode,” Journal of Power Sources, vol. 261, no. 0, pp. 285 – 291,
2014.

[51] B. Vidyadharan, R. A. Aziz, I. I. Misnon, G. M. A. Kumar, J. Ismail, M. M. Yusoff, and R. Jose,

“High energy and power density asymmetric supercapacitors using electrospun cobalt oxide
nanowire anode,” Journal of Power Sources, vol. 270, no. 0, pp. 526 – 535, 2014.

[52] 48 Volt Supercapacitor Modules, Maxwell, 2013.

[53] R. K “Principles and applications of electrochemical capacitors,” Electrochimica Acta, vol. 45,
no. 15âĂŞ 16, pp. 2483 – 2498, 2000.

[54] M. T. Bobby Maher. Ultracapacitors provide cost and energy savings for public transportation
applications. [Online]. Available: http://www.batterypoweronline.com/images/PDFs_articles_
whitepaper_appros/Maxwell%20Technologies.pdf

[55] “Integrating large specific surface area and high conductivity in hydrogenated NiCo2 O4
double-shell hollow spheres to improve supercapacitors,” NPG Asia Materials, vol. 7, no.
165, 2015.

[56] Battery University. (2015) BU-209: Supercapacitor. [Online]. Available: http:

//batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/whats_the_role_of_the_supercapacitor

[57] M. Wens and M. Steyaert, Design and Implementation of Fully-Integrated Inductive DC-DC
Converters in Standard CMOS, ser. Analog Circuits and Signal Processing. Springer,
2011. [Online]. Available: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KwKv_99mmYMC

[58] C. Hubert, Electric circuits AC/DC: an integrated approach, ser. McGraw-Hill series in
electrical engineering: Electronics and electronic circuits. McGraw-Hill, 1982. [Online].
Available: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L-FSAAAAMAAJ

[59] T. Longland, T. Hunt, and W. Brecknell, Power capacitor handbook. Butterworths, 1984.
[Online]. Available: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=u-RSAAAAMAAJ

[60] Maxwell. (2015) User manual,maxwell technologiesÂőultracapacitor energy storage

modules powered by durablueâĎć. [Online]. Available: http://cfnewsads.thomasnet.com/
images/large/023/23636.jpg

[61] A. Ltd. (2015) Alumina-aluminium oxide-al2o3-a refractory ceramic oxide. [Online]. Available:
http://www.azom.com/properties.aspx?ArticleID=52

[62] (2014, May) Electric shock. [Online]. Available: http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/

electric-shock

[63] MakerBot. PLA and ABS strength data. [Online]. Available: https://eu.makerbot.com/
fileadmin/Inhalte/Support/Datenblatt/MakerBot_R__PLA_and_ABS_Strength_Data.pdf

[64] Stratasys. ABS. [Online]. Available: http://www.nrri.umn.edu/NLTC/ABS07.pdf

202 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[65] M. Inc. (2015) Simulink. [Online]. Available: http://uk.mathworks.com/products/simulink/

[66] 4QD. (2015) Instruction manual: 4qd series controllers. [Online]. Available: http:
//www.4qd.co.uk/instrs/New/View/4QD_300.pdf

[67] Department for Transport. Intercity express program schedule 1 - appendix a - technical
specification. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/82840/tts-redacted.pdf

[68] J. H. White, Jr., The American Railroad Passenger Car: Part 2), ser. Johns Hopkins Studies
in the History of Technology. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.

[69] S. P. Sutera and R. Skalak, “The history of poiseuille’s law,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechan-
ics, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 1993.

[70] K. Fender. South west trains upgrades emu fleet. [Online]. Available: http://www.railjournal.
com/index.php/rolling-stock/south-west-trains-upgrades-emu-fleet.html

[71] Siemens AG, “Eurostar e320 high-speed trains specification.” [Online].

Available: http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/sitecollectiondocuments/en/
rail-solutions/high-speed-and-intercity-trains/velaro/velaro-e320-en.pdf

[72] Railway Technical Web Pages. (2014) A guide to airbrakes. [Online]. Available:
http://www.railway-technical.com/air-brakes.shtml,

[73] Take-y. (2006) Eddy current brake equipment on shinkansen series 700. [Online]. Available:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uzu-brake.JPG

[74] M. Fujita, T. Tokumasu, T. Yamada, T. Hirose, Y. Tanaka, N. Kumagai, and S. Uchida, “3-
dimensional electromagnetic analysis and design of an eddy-current rail brake system,” Mag-
netics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 3548–3551, Sep 1998.

[75] N. Ida, Engineering Electromagnetics. Springer, 2004.

[76] J. Schykowski. Eddy-current braking: a long road to success.

[Online]. Available: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/business/single-view/view/
eddy-current-braking-a-long-road-to-success.html

[77] P. Wang and S. Chiueh, “Analysis of eddy-current brakes for high speed railway,” Magnetics,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1237–1239, Jul 1998.

[78] E. Draper. (2008, Aug) Air brakes on the Golden Valley Light Railway. [Online]. Available:
http://www.gvlr.org.uk/tech_info/airbrakes.pdf

[79] Railway Technical Web Pages. (2014) A guide to vacuum brakes. [Online]. Available:
http://www.railway-technical.com/vacuum.shtmll,

[80] Bridge End Minature Railway. (2014) Locomotives. [Online]. Available: http://www.
bridgendminiaturerailway.com/locomotives.html

[81] Janovskỳ, Elevator Mechanical Design.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 203

[82] L. E. Z. J. Reuter, D. and J. Elliott, “Hydraulic design considerations for EHB systems,” SAE
Technical Paper.

[83] Svendborg-Brakes. (2015) Fail safe brakes. [Online]. Available: http://www.

svendborg-brakes.com/en/products/hydraulic-brakes/failsafe-brakes.aspx

[84] PNP Railways. (2015) Vacuum braking kit specification.

[85] The Ergonomics Centre. (2006) Human strength data tables. [Online]. Available:
http://www.theergonomicscenter.com/graphics/Workstation%20Design/Strength.pdf

[86] M. Tomorrow. (2013, June) History of the microprocessor. [Online]. Available: http:
//meetingtomorrow.com/cms-category/history-of-the-microprocessor

[87] S. Sone and I. Okumura. (1983) The microprocessor in railway control systems. [Online].
Available: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-009-7007-6_19

[88] Arduino. (2015) Arduino boards and products. [Online]. Available: http://arduino.cc/en/Main/
Products

[89] R. Pi. (2015) Rasberry Pi 1 model A+. [Online]. Available: http://www.raspberrypi.org/

products/model-a-plus/

[90] BeagleBoard. (2015, March) BeagleBone Black.

[91] National Instruments. What is NI myRIO? [Online]. Available: http://www.ni.com/myrio/

what-is/

[92] J. Bentley, Principles of Measurement Systems. Longman, 1995.

[93] T. Chalko. (2007) High accuracy speed measurement using gps (global positioning system).
[Online]. Available: http://nujournal.net/HighAccuracySpeed.pdf

[94] Hall Effect Sensing and Application. Honeywell, 2005.

[95] Electrocomponents. Geartooth speed sensor. [Online]. Available: http://docs-europe.

electrocomponents.com/webdocs/110a/0900766b8110a266.pdf

[96] SMC. (2015, Mar). [Online]. Available: http://docs-europe.electrocomponents.com/webdocs/

096b/0900766b8096b861.pdf

[97] L & S Electric INC. (2014, Mar). [Online]. Available: http://www.lselectric.com/

4-quadrant-motor-control-2-quadrant-operation/

[98] D. Bakker, “Battery electric vehicles - performance, CO2 emissions, lifecycle costs and ad-
vanced battery technology development,” Master thesis, Copernicus Institute University of
Utrecht, August 2010.

[99] D. Linden and T. Reddy, Handbook of Batteries, ser. McGraw-Hill handbooks. McGraw-Hill,
2001.

[100] A. Joseph and M. Shahidehpour, “Battery storage systems in electric power systems,” in
Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2006. IEEE, 2006, pp. 8 pp.–.
204 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[101] M. G. Cugnet, M. Dubarry, and B. Y. Liaw, “Peukert’s law of a lead-acid battery simulated
by a mathematical model,” ECS Transactions, vol. 25, no. 35, pp. 223–233, 2010. [Online].
Available: http://ecst.ecsdl.org/content/25/35/223.abstract

[102] (2013, August) Pacific scientific-oeco. [Online]. Available: http://fwbell.com/products/

current-sensors-open-loop.aspx

[103] (2015) Alfatronix. [Online]. Available: http://www.alfatronix.eu/

1575-powertector---full-range-now-available.php

[104] (2015) Voltage divider circuits. [Online]. Available: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/

chpt_6/1.html

[105] C. Ponce de León, “Energy conversion in fuel cells,” University Lecture. [Online]. Avail-
able: https://blackboard.soton.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-2454138-dt-content-rid-1733817_
1/courses/FEEG6007-32779-14-15/Lecture%203%20Energy%20Conversion%20in%
20Fuel%20Cells%2014-19%20Nov%202014%281%29.pdf

[106] M. Spiryagin, C. Cole, Y. Q. Sun, M. McClanachan, V. Spiryagin, and T. McSweeney, Design

and Simulation of Rail Vehicles, ser. Ground Vehicle Engineering Series. CRC Press, 2014.

[107] S. Iwnicki, Ed., Handbook of Vehicle Dynamics. CRC Press, 2006.

[108] Wikimedia Commons. File:spherical-ball-bearing double-row din630-t1.png. [Online].

Available: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Spherical-ball-bearing_
double-row_din630-t1.png

[109] Wikimedia Commons. File:self-aligning-roller-thrust-bearing din728 ex.png.

[Online]. Available: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/
Self-aligning-roller-thrust-bearing_din728_ex.png

[110] (2004, May) The Klien-Lindner axle articulation system. [Online]. Available: http:
//www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/klienlindner/klienlindner.htm

[111] N. G. Stephen, “SESG1001 - Mechanics of Solids,” 2011. [Online]. Avail-

able: https://blackboard.soton.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-1620342-dt-content-rid-164581_1/
courses/SESG1001-10678-11-12/Lecture%209.pdf

[112] Engineeringtoolbox. Area moment of intertia. [Online]. Available: http://www.

engineeringtoolbox.com/area-moment-inertia-d_1328.html

[113] Youngs modulus cost. [Online]. Available: http://www-materials.eng.cam.ac.uk/mpsite/

interactive_charts/stiffness-cost/basic.html

[114] IMechE, RC02 - Wheel Profile, 2015.

[115] J. R. Calvert and R. A. Farrar, Elastic Bending and Torsion Relationships, 3rd ed., 2008, pp.
13–1.

[116] Lynch Motors. (2015) Motor generators. [Online]. Available: http://lynchmotors.co.uk/

generators-motors_generators.html
BIBLIOGRAPHY 205

[117] MatWeb. (2015) Matweb, your source for materials information. [Online]. Available:
http://www.matweb.com/

[118] P. M. Starink, Material Selection for Design, 2015, pp. 15–16. [Online]. Avail-
able: https://blackboard.soton.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-2313206-dt-content-rid-1768721_1/
courses/SESG6042-32843-14-15/Ch1%20%28MJS2014%29%20compl.pdf

[119] CorrosionClinic. (1995) Galvanic corrosion mechanisms. [Online]. Available: http:

//www.corrosionclinic.com/types_of_corrosion/galvanic_corrosion.htm

[120] BBC Bitesize. (2015) Redox reactions. [Online]. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/

gcsebitesize/science/triple_ocr_gateway/chemistry_out_there/redox_reactions/revision/2/

[121] A. Da Ronch, “SESA3001 - Structural Design,” 2014.

[122] The Chiel, “Diameter of train wheel,” 2013. [Online]. Available: https://answers.yahoo.com/
question/index?qid=20130620065628AANbLFa

[123] IMechE, Railway Challenge Technical Specification, 2015.

[Online]. Available: http://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/knowledge/
railway-challenge-2015-technical-specification.pdf?sfvrsn=0

[124] (2014) Relation between tractive force and motor torque. [Online]. Available:
http://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_relation_between_tractive_force_pull_force_
and_motor_torque_in_traction_can_we_find_an_exact_relation_between_them_analytically

[125] M. Kozłowski, “Badania zerwania przyczepności w ruchu pojazdu szynowego (theory of rail-
way vehicles motion),” Prace Naukowe Politechniki Warszawskiej. Transport, vol. z. 74, pp.
3–104, 2010.

[126] Wikipedia. (2015) Contact mechanics. [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Contact_mechanics

[127] Wikipedia. (2015) Contact mechanics solutions. [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/

wiki/Contact_mechanics#Classical_solutions_for_non-adhesive_elastic_contact

[128] Engineering Tool Box. (2015) Slope - degree, gradient and grade converter. [Online].
Available: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/slope-degrees-gradient-grade-d_1562.html

[129] Automotion Components, “Miniature linear rail carriages.” [Online]. Available: http://www.
automotioncomponents.co.uk/files/datasheet/L1010-miniature-linear-rail-carriages.pdf

[130] Wikipedia. (2015) Ultimate tensile strengths. [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Ultimate_tensile_strength#Typical_tensile_strengths

[131] Wikipedia. (2015) Ultimate tensile strengths. [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Ultimate_tensile_strength#Typical_tensile_strengths

[132] J. Walker, “Microstructural engineering for transport applications,” 2015.

[133] A. Ragab and S. Bayoumi, Engineering Solid Mechanics: Fundamentals and

Applications. Taylor & Francis, 1998. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.co.uk/books?
id=QAASF3oMvEEC
206 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[134] M. Vable, Intermediate Mechanics of Materials. [Online]. Available: http://www.me.mtu.edu/

~mavable/MEEM4405/Energy_slides.pdf

[135] Department of Chemistry, University of Oxford. (2015) Momentum and en-

ergy. [Online]. Available: http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/teaching/Physics%20for%20CHemists/
Mechanics/energy.html

[136] A. Bhaskar, “SESA6047 Aircraft Structures - Bending Analysis,” University Lecture, 2015.

[137] J. Astley, “SESM2016 Solids and Structures - Asymmetric Bending,” University Lecture,
2012.

[138] J. Astley, “SESM2016 Solids and Structures - Bending Shear Stress 1,” University Lecture,
2012.

[139] National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning. Lecture 28-29. [Online].

Available: http://www.nptel.ac.in/courses/112107146/lects%20&%20picts/image/lect28%
20and%2029/lecture%2028%20and%2029.htm

[140] Wikipedia. (2015) Von Mises yield criterion. [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Von_Mises_yield_criterion#Reduced_von_Mises_equation_for_different_stress_conditions

[141] R. Beardmore. (2013) Screw strengths. [Online]. Available: http://www.roymech.co.uk/

Useful_Tables/Screws/Strength.htm

[142] C. Campbell, Automobile Suspension. Chapman and Hall, 1981.

[143] Weforma. Air spring catalogue. [Online]. Available: http://www.weforma.com/fileadmin/pdf/

14/Weforma_14_WBE_WBZ_WBD.pdf

[144] Weforma. Air spring data sheet. [Online]. Available: http://www.weforma.com/fileadmin/pdf/

Luftfedern-Datenblatt/EN/WBE/Weforma_WBE_EN.pdf

[145] D. Patrick, “Some notes on american locomotive practice 1948,” Journal of the Institution
of Locomotive Engineers, vol. 39, no. 207, pp. 54–86, 1949. [Online]. Available:
http://www.steamindex.com/jile/jile39.htm

[146] P. Berkley. (2014) Rolling stock manufacture. [Online]. Available: http:

//www.railway-technical.com/Manufacturing.shtml

[147] Bosch Rexroth Corp, Aluminium Structural Framing System, 2007.

[148] D. Thompson, “Principles of passive noise control,” University Lecture, 2014.

[149] IronmongeryDirect. Plain slotted vent. [Online]. Available: http://http:

//www.ironmongerydirect.co.uk/products/bolts_stops_and_accessories/vents/2100/plain_
slotted_vent_satin_aluminium/164428

[150] R. Peterson. Plain slotted vent. [Online]. Available: http://www.rhpeterson.com/legacydoors/

legacy-stainless-steel-venting-panel-with-louvers-5510-01/

[151] D. Thompson, “Sound transmition through partitions, isvr 3064 noise control engineering,”
University Lecture ISVR 3064, 2014.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 207

[152] C. Livingstone, “The assessment of noise pollution caused by bottle banks, and evaluation
of noise reduction methods,” University Assignment, ISVR noise control engineering (assign-
ment 2), 2015.

[153] J. Wharton, “Surface engineering,” 2014.

[154] exelcomposites. (2015) Specific modulus of materials. [On-

line]. Available: http://www.exelcomposites.com/fi-fi/english/composites/composites/
comparedperformance/specificmodulus.aspx

[155] J. Walker, “Automotive lightweighting,” 2014.

[156] WestSystem. (2011) Fiberglass boat repair and maintenance.

[Online]. Available: http://www.westsystem.com/ss/assets/HowTo-Publications/
Fiberglass-Boat-Repair-and-Maintenance.pdf

[157] B. Tindale, “Fibreglass manufacture,” 2015.

A. Bill of Materials

208
 209

10K ohm Thermistors Electronics £1.40 RS BOM 769-1931 10 £16.82

250A Fuse Electronics £4.44 RS BOM 226-0894 5 £26.64
Fuse Holder Electronics £1.36 RS BOM 384-027 5 £8.15
10A Fuse Electronics £0.20 RS BOM 563-592 10 £2.42
20A Keyswitch Electronics £23.00 RS BOM 515-713 1 £27.60
Cable Grommet Kit Electronics £15.60 RS BOM 456-719 1 £18.72
10M of PVC Cable Sleeve Electronics £2.93 RS BOM 404-196 1 £3.52
ABS Enclosures Electronics £6.79 RS BOM 502-663 2 £16.30
PCB Standoffs Electronics £0.18 RS BOM 609-281 25 £5.25
Digital Hall effect sensor electronics £5.91 RS BOM 407-7650 4 £28.37
NPN Hall effect sensor Electronics £30.24 RS BOM 765-9319 2 £72.58
12V 55Ah Lead Acid Rechargeable Battery Electronics £122.93 RS BOM 727-0408 4 £590.06
Battery Charger Electronics £96.13 RS 1OC 478-4099 2 £230.71
Battery Low Voltage Disconnect Electronics £29.58 RS BOM 791-8469 2 £70.99
Current Sensor Electronics £0.78 RS BOM 751-5297 1 £0.94
MyRio Microcontroller Electronics £520.00 NI 1OC NI myRIO-1900 1 £520.00
Makita Drill Tools £150.00 Farnell 1OC 2452756 1 £180.00
Drill Bit Set Tools £8.77 Farnell 1OC 1824704 1 £10.52
Heat Shrink Electronics £16.68 Farnell 1OC 1518577 1 £20.02
Dremel Tools £92.90 Farnell 1OC 2422660 1 £111.48
Bench Vice Tools £29.87 Farnell 1OC 1348430 1 £35.84
Hack Saw Tools £20.45 Farnell 1OC 3522386 1 £24.54
Files Tools £24.80 Farnell 1OC 7238666 1 £29.76
Nut & Bolt Kit Tools £4.44 Farnell BOM 2444371 1 £5.33
MB1 Series Mechanical Calliper Brakes £20.00 Airheart Brakes BOM 3000-0034 4 £80.00
Insulating gloves Tools £28.60 Reece Safety 1OC ELE10 3 £85.80
11 tooth small sprocket Traction £1.72 Wych Bearings BOM 3SR11 4 £6.88
12 tooth small sprocket Traction £1.92 Wych Bearings BOM 3SR12 4 £9.48
Transport to Leicester track visit Comp Fees £243.60 N/A 1OC N/A 1 £243.60
MagnaChip, Diode, Energy Rec £28.13 RS BOM 784-6257 2 £67.51
1 → 10 mm 19 Piece Metal Drill Set Energy Rec £15.40 RS 1OC 4442262 1 £18.48
125A Fuse Energy Rec £3.55 RS BOM 226-0850 5 £21.30
160A Fuse Energy Rec £3.55 RS BOM 226-0917 5 £21.30
Bosch Rexroth Aluminium 3000mm 45 x 45mm Build Rig £45.70 RS BOM 3900048 10 £548.40
Bosch Rexroth Aluminium 3000mm 45 x 45mm Frame £45.70 RS BOM 3900048 8 £438.72
Bosch Rexroth Strut Profile Angle Bracket, 10mm Build Rig £4.45 RS BOM 3901805 84 £448.56
Bosch Rexroth Strut Profile Angle Bracket, 10mm Frame £4.45 RS BOM 3901805 26 £138.84
Bosch Rexroth Castor 10mm M12 Build Rig £16.91 RS 1OC 686-7751 10 £202.92
Bosch Rexroth 10mm Insert Build Rig £7.53 RS 1OC 390-0408 3 £27.11
Euro Plug Adapter Tools £2.83 RS 1OC 399-6134 1 £3.40
Plain SS Hex Bolt M8 x 30mm Build Rig £17.32 RS 1OC 797-6288 1 £20.78
SS Plain Washer M8 2mm Thickness Build Rig £7.77 RS 1OC 797-6250 1 £9.32
SS Plain Washer M8 1mm Thickness Build Rig £4.73 RS 1OC 189-664 2 £11.35
Scissors Tools £8.22 RS 1OC 509-9960 1 £9.86
Ruler Tools £10.35 RS 1OC 545-070 1 £12.42
Pens Tools £7.62 RS 1OC 366-0368 1 £9.14
Scribe Tools £6.98 RS 1OC 394-201 1 £8.38
Cable Ties Tools £5.57 RS 1OC 170-3902 2 £13.37
Spirit Level Tools £9.27 RS 1OC 251-7178 1 £11.12
Panel mount resistor (for motor controller) Electronics £2.17 RS BOM 683-5950 2 £5.21
Fuse Holder Electronics £13.05 RS BOM 380-9923 4 £62.64
5/16" Di M8 Spacer 0.5" Length Build Rig £1.75 Custom Fasteners 1OC 1028-e2f38c 16 £28.00
CABLE 6491B 6.00MM Grey 100M Energy Rec £74.30 Farnell BOM CB11286 1 £89.16
CABLE 6491B 6.00MM Green/Yellow 100M Energy Rec £70.30 Farnell BOM CB11285 1 £84.36
M8 Eye Bolt Build Rig £2.47 TechniLift 1OC 106.053.008 6 £14.82
Emergency Disconnect Switch Electronics £43.26 The Toolbox Shop BOM ED250B-1 1 £43.26
Albirght 48V contactor Electronics £78.55 The Toolbox Shop BOM SW200-20 1 £78.55
Albright Contactor mounting bracket Electronics £1.75 The Toolbox Shop BOM 2028-551A 1 £1.75
Bosch Rexroth Sprung Insert 10mm Build Rig £7.51 RS 1OC 390-0414 3 £27.04
Bosch Rexroth Sprung 10mm Insert M8 Build Rig £7.53 RS 1OC 390-0391 3 £27.11
12 V Contactor Energy Rec £31.20 Traction Power Spares BOM SW80/12C 3 £93.60
12 V Contactor Energy Rec £31.20 Traction Power Spares BOM SW80/12 2 £62.40
12 V Contactor Energy Rec £31.20 Traction Power Spares BOM SW85/28 1 £31.20
Mounting Bracket Energy Rec £1.20 Traction Power Spares BOM A5/10 2 £2.40
Mounting Bracket Single L Energy Rec £1.20 Traction Power Spares BOM A5/11 5 £6.00
Harmony Collar Energy Rec £6.00 Traction Power Spares BOM HAR/1 1 £6.00
Harmony Contact Block Energy Rec £6.00 Traction Power Spares BOM HAR/3 1 £6.00
Panic Button Energy Rec £18.00 Traction Power Spares BOM HAR/4 1 £18.00
Panic Button Single Pole Energy Rec £34.80 Traction Power Spares BOM PB/15 1 £34.80
TractionPowerSpares shipping Energy Rec £13.14 Traction Power Spares BOM CAR 1 £13.14
Flanged Bearing Bogies £18.89 AUT BOM 27B002 4 £75.56
1 Ohm resistor Energy Rec £87.80 RS BOM TE2500B1R0J 1 £105.36
125A fuse Energy Rec £3.49 toolboxshop BOM FX021348 1 £3.49
Transistor Electronics £0.61 RS BOM 313-6916 10 £7.32
CEJN Steel Pneumatic Quick Connect Coupling Brakes £3.29 RS BOM 498-488 1 £3.95
Bosch Rexroth Strut Profile Angle Bracket, 10mm Frame £9.20 RS BOM 390-1811 10 £110.40
Bosch Rexroth 45x90 2m Profile Frame £64.45 RS BOM 390-0133 2 £154.68
RS Green Storage Bin Tools £1.56 RS 1OC 484-4040 5 £9.35
Adhesive Labels Tools £9.71 RS 1OC 758-7939 1 £11.65
Safety Glasses Tools £1.23 RS 1OC 755-7954 4 £5.90
RS Stainless Steel Threaded Rod Build Rig £3.77 RS 1OC 280-408 5 £22.62
RS Zig Zag Stainless Steel 360mm x 7.9mm Tie Build Rig £38.16 RS 1OC 743-6355 1 £45.79
MB1 Caliper, Clockwise motion Brakes £35.81 Toolmatic Inc. BOM 3000-0020 2 £71.62
MB1 Caliper, Counter-Clockwise motion Brakes £35.81 Toolmatic Inc. BOM 3000-0021 2 £71.62
FW Bell NA 25 Current Sensor Electronics £13.81 Farnell BOM 2292986 2 £33.14
RS G 1/4 Pressure Switch, 0.2bar to 2.5 bar Electronics £25.26 RS BOM 297-0046 1 £30.31
2.2 Ohm resistor Energy Rec £100.14 RS BOM 701-5882 1 £120.17
Bosch Rexroth Adjustable Foot M12 Build Rig £4.49 RS 1OC 390-2252 10 £53.88
10 Tooth Plate Wheel Sprocket Traction £18.06 ondrives BOM SPLW12.7/7.75-10 4 £86.69
50 Tooth Bossed Simplex Sprocket Traction £46.05 ondrives BOM SCS12.7/7.55-50 4 £221.04
4QD Motor Controller Electronics £309.50 4QD BOM DQD-300-48 1 £371.40
2.8kW Generator Traction £540.00 thepowersite BOM EVO3000Ei 2.8kW 1 £540.00
Switching Mode PSU Traction £784.88 RS BOM 674-1669 1 £784.88
7/16 Spherical Bearing Frame £6.02 SimplyBearings BOM COM07 2 £14.45
3/4 Spherical Bearing Frame £9.85 SimplyBearings BOM COM12 2 £23.64
D1400/0350 35mm External Circlip (Pack of 10) Bogies £3.94 bearingboys BOM D1400/0350 2 £9.46
D1400/0400 40mm External Circlip (Pack of 10) Bogies £4.50 bearingboys BOM D1400/0400 2 £10.80
D1400/0500 50mm External Circlip (Pack of 10) Bogies £5.63 bearingboys BOM D1400/0500 3 £20.27
210 APPENDIX A. BILL OF MATERIALS

Silverline Bent External Circlip Pliers 230mm Tools £4.71 bearingboys BOM 595758 1 £5.65
Bearingboys Next-Day Delivery Bogies £8.50 bearingboys BOM 1 £8.50
Bosch Rexroth M8 Nut Bogies £7.53 RS BOM 390-0391 5 £45.18
M8x30 bolt Bogies £0.14 accuscrews BOM SEBF-M8-30-A2 32 £5.38
M5x90 bolt Bogies £0.58 accuscrews BOM SEBF-M5-90-A2 32 £22.27
M5 Nut Bogies £0.02 accuscrews BOM HPN-M5-A2 100 £2.40
M5 Wingnuts Bogies £0.12 accuscrews BOM HWN-M5-A2 32 £4.61
M8x25 bolt Bogies £0.13 accuscrews BOM SEBF-M8-25-A2 20 £3.12
M8x50 bolt Bogies £0.20 accuscrews BOM SEBF-M8-50-A2 20 £4.80
M8 Nut Bogies £0.05 accuscrews BOM HPN-M8-A2 100 £6.00
Mild Steel Plate (Dave H Drawbar) Frame £10.00 MetalSupermarket BOM 1 £12.00
Aluminium Plate 15mm (Charlie) Bogies £40.00 MetalSupermarket BOM 1 £48.00
Aluminium Plate 5mm (Charlie) Bogies £4.00 MetalSupermarket BOM 1 £4.80
Stainless Steel Plate 2mm (Charlie) Bogies £10.00 MetalSupermarket BOM 1 £12.00
Motor Mounts Fabrication (Mitch) Traction £10.00 Clarke-Lane BOM 2 £20.00
60mm M8 Bolts (Mitch) Bogies £1.55 Wickes BOM 3 £4.65
Brake Callipers (#1) Import Tax (Mitch) Brakes £43.29 ParcelForce BOM 1 £43.29
Cable Conduit, 25mm diameter, 10m long Electronics £34.81 RS BOM 513-2360 1 £41.77
Single Sided Strip Board Electronics £7.03 RS BOM 434-217 1 £8.44
ABS Enclosure Electronics £6.76 RS BOM 502-663 1 £8.11
Control Wire 100m, 7/0.2 BLUE, 1.4A Electronics £6.65 RS BOM 712-5336 1 £7.98
Control Wire 100m, 7/0.2 GREEN 1.4A Electronics £6.65 RS BOM 712-5333 1 £7.98
Control Wire 100m, 7/0.2 WHITE 1.4A Electronics £6.65 RS BOM 712-5355 1 £7.98
1A blade fuse (pack of 10) Electronics £1.54 RS BOM 787-4110 1 £1.85
2A blade fuse (pack of 10) Electronics £1.54 RS BOM 787-4126 1 £1.85
20A blade fuse (pack of 10) Electronics £1.54 RS BOM 787-4136 1 £1.85
5 x 3.9 Ohm Resistors Energy Rec £0.56 RS BOM 485-2580 5 £3.36
Screw connectors - ali frame Frame £9.53 RS BOM 420-6943 4 £45.74
6 POS Male Molex Electronics £0.44 Farnell BOM 2383183 15 £7.92
6 POS Female Molex Electronics £2.11 Farnell BOM 2383201 15 £37.98
Blade fuse and distribution Board Electronics £28.11 AES BOM 100134 2 £67.46
Delivery Electronics £3.75 AES BOM 1 £4.50
1/4 Turn Vacuum Valve Brakes £3.00 Easy Composites BOM VV-FF 1 £3.60
Delivery Brakes £1.30 Easy Composites BOM 1 £1.56
Clear PVC Tube - 3 1/16th Brakes £0.95 PNP Railways BOM PNR-1I 8 £7.60
Bosch Rexroth 45x90 2m Profile Frame £64.45 RS BOM 390-0133 1 £77.34
1.5mm Aluminium Sheet (EDMC) Shell £38.95 EDMC BOM 2 £77.90
1.5mm Aluminium Sheet (EDMC) Shell £29.50 EDMC BOM 1 £29.50
Delivery Shell £6.50 EDMC BOM 1 £6.50
Jockey Wheels Build Rig £15.84 Amazon 1OC 4 £63.36
Delivery Build Rig £11.44 Amazon 1OC 1 £11.44
3m Webbed Lifting Sling Build Rig £11.20 SafetyLiftingGear 1OC WEB3XLG 2 £22.40
Delivery Build Rig £4.99 SafetyLiftingGear 1OC 1 £5.99
Low Profile M8 Nuts Bogies £4.58 Precision Technology Supps BOM A43908 1 £5.50
Delivery Bogies £3.50 Precision Technology Supps BOM 1 £4.20
M8x80 bolt Bogies £0.28 Accuscrews BOM SEBF-M8-80-A2 38 £12.77
Delivery Bogies £4.95 Accuscrews BOM 1 £5.94
NI myRIO Panel Mount Kit Electronics £13.00 NI BOM 783091-01 1 £13.00
Delivery Electronics £14.06 NI BOM 1 £14.06
M6 Bobbin Energy Rec £3.38 Polymax BOM M6 60 ShA NR 4 £16.22
Delivery Energy Rec £4.50 Polymax BOM 1 £5.40
Plug + cable (Mitch) Traction £6.32 Portswood Hardware BOM 1 £6.32
Ratchet Straps (Mitch) Build Rig £5.99 eBay 1OC 1 £5.99
Nylon Sheet 500mmx300mmx10mm (Mitch) Bogies £25.82 RS BOM 282-0733 1 £30.98
Bosch Rexroth T-Head Bolt, 10mm (Mitch) Frame £8.56 RS BOM 390-0335 3 £30.82
Velcro Black Hook & Loop Strip, 20mm x 10m (Mitch) Frame £9.73 RS BOM 423-9555 2 £23.35
M8 Crimps (Mitch) Electronics £0.14 RS BOM 119-176 50 £8.40
M10 Crimps (Mitch) Electronics £0.35 RS BOM 795-1693 50 £21.00
50 Tooth Sprocket (Emergency!) (Mitch) Traction £17.87 eBay BOM 4 £71.48
10 Tooth Sprocket (Emergency!) (Mitch) Traction £1.52 bearingboys BOM PW108B/10 4 £7.30
Delivery (Mitch) Traction £8.50 bearingboys BOM 1 £10.20
D1400/0500 50mm Circlip (Pack of 10) (Mitch) Bogies £5.63 bearingboys BOM D1400/0500 3 £20.27
Delivery (Mitch) Bogies £8.50 bearingboys BOM 1 £10.20
Rubber Feet (Mitch) Electronics £8.39 Ebay BOM 1 £8.39
57mm Ali Tube (Harry) Traction £8.49 Ebay BOM 1 £8.49
19mm Ali Tube (Harry) Traction £6.25 Ebay BOM 1 £6.25
6mm Steel Keys Traction £6.09 Ebay BOM 1 £6.09
Loctite (Mitch) Frame £6.99 Halfords BOM 2 £13.98
Loctite (Harry) Frame £6.99 Halfords BOM 1 £6.99
Brake calliper mounts Brakes £20.00 Clarke-Lane BOM 1 £24.00
Brake interaction bracket Brakes £30.00 Clarke-Lane BOM 1 £36.00
Lockout plates Bogies £92.80 Clarke-Lane BOM 1 £111.36
Shelves Frame £136.80 Clarke-Lane BOM 1 £164.16
Sprocket adapters Traction £76.00 Clarke-Lane BOM 1 £91.20
 B.
Assessment

Title of risk assessment GDP 21 - Design and Manufacture of a Miniature Locomotive

Risk Acceptability Severity

1-3 Risk acceptable very low medium high very
Risk Matrix low high
4-6 Risk to be reduced if readily possible 1 2 3 4 5
7-14 Risk to be reduced if reasonably practicable certainty 5 5 10 15 20 25
15-25 Risk unacceptable likely 4 4 8 12 16 20
possible 3 3 6 9 12 15
less likely 2 2 4 6 8 10

Likelihood
improbable 1 1 2 3 4 5
Overall Likelihood
Overall Severity

Harm and how it could Who could be Risk

ref Task/Aspect of work Hazard Existing measures to control risk Factors
arise affected?
Residual Risk score
Any changes or extra controls?

Assembly/testing Magnetic Fields Magnetic fields can Operator Ensure a large visible warning is place over 1 4 4

211
interact with the braking system that electromagnetic
pacemakers/hearing fields are present.
aids
Risk Assessment

Assembly Magnetic fields Injury resulting from Operator Require anyone who works on the train to 3 2 6
magnetic jewlerry remove any metallic objects before they
interacting with work on the project.
magnetic fields.
Assembly//testing Harmful Fluid Puncture of brake Operator Protect the brake cylinder from puncture. 2 3 6
cylinder results in Ensure when brake fluid is being handled
contact with brake fluid. protective gloves are worn.

Assembly/Testing
Pressure Implosion of vaccum Operator Ensure components installed that use 1 3 3
compents & potential vacuums are manufactured to an
hearing loss appropriate specification with safety factor
applied. Protect any depressurised
components from impact or puncture
through design layout. Use eye and ear
protection when maintaining braking
systems.

Page 1 of 4 HS/UOS/FR/038/04
 212

Testing Brakes Brake failure results in Operator & Dedicated emergency braking system & 2 2 4
loss of control of the bystanders braking system will be designed to lock "on"
train. in event of failure
Testing Flywheel Flywheel or bearing Operator & Casing around flywheel sufficiently robust to 1 3 3
breaking under high bystanders contain flying fragments if event did occur.
load. Fragments and
shrapnel ejecting to the
surroundings.
Electrical assembly and testing Electrical Short circuiting of unit Operator & Wiring circuit to reduce risk of event to be 1 2 2
creating very high bystanders implemented.
discharge rates
exceeding safety
parameters of flywheel
or supercapacitor.
Electrical assembly and testing Electrical Hot surfaces to touch. Operator - Wires that are rated to withstand sufficiently 1 1 1
Burning up of wires equiptment high currents will be used.
caused by excessive damage
current in discharge of
supercapacitor or
electric flywheel.
Electrical assembly and testing Hazardous Fluids Overcharging / puncture Operator Rigidly maintained voltage input limits at 1 3 3
in Supercapacitor - risk of chemical burn below capacitor rated voltage to ensure that
due to voltage being run risk is minimised as much as possible.
above rated voltage of
the unit causing
generation of hydrogen
gas within the cell.
Puncture due to
increased pressure
within cell.

Assembly/testing Crushing Jack failure leading to Operator Jacks to have fail-safe measures 1 4 4
train falling implemented and train to feature jacking
points to secure the jacks in place to
prevent slippage. Working underneath to be
limited if practical.
Manufacture Welding Burns and damage to Operator & PPE to be worn and area to be clear, 2 2 4
eyes bystanders welding only to be carried out after
necessary training/inductions have occurred
APPENDIX B. RISK ASSESSMENT

Page 2 of 4 HS/UOS/FR/038/04
 Testing Motor/Drivetrain Burns - the motor and Operator The motor and drivetrain will be adequately 2 2 4
drivetrain may become cooled and the operator will be told to avoid
hot in operation and contact with them whilst in operation. They
during testing. will also be reminded that components can
get hot by warning labels.

Testing Vehicle/Drivetrain Cuts/Amputaton/Wound Operator & Adequate safety guards will be put in place 1 4 4
ing - Drivetrain bystanders between any moving drivetrain components
components such as and locations that the operator or
chains, belts, gears and bystanders could be present in. Drivetrain
pulleys can break and components will be operated only within
when operating at high their stated limits with regard to forces
speed shrapnel can be transmitted and operating speeds.
produced.
Testing Electrical Electrocution - When Operator Terminals will be shielded and operator will 1 3 3 no
generator is in operation be instructed to not make contact with
it produces an electrical terminals whilst the generator is running.
current in its output
terminals.
Testing Noxious Gases Asphyxiation/poisoning - Operator & Generator is only to be operated outside or 1 3 3 no
When petrol or diesel bystanders in a correctly ventilated area with sufficient
generator is in exhaust gas extraction.
operation, it will emit
exhaust gases.
Testing Hazardous Fluids Burns - Liquid fuels Operator & Keep fluids secure in storage cupboard until 1 4 4 no
such as petrol or diesel bystanders needed. Enforce strict no naked-flame
are highly flammable policy when fuel is to be used. Correct filling
and could cause burns apparatus including funnel should be used
or injury if ignited. when locomotive fuel tank is to be filled.
Fire extinguisher should be on hand as
stipulated in general fire risk assessment in
this document.

Assembly Vehicle Tripping/falling over the Operator & Keep work area clear and tidy. 2 1 2
locomotive, bystanders
trailing/loose parts and
equipment.
Assembly/testing Electrical Electrocution and burns - Operator Keep all food and drink outside of the lab, 1 2 2
water/other liquids or well clear of the automotive.
getting in contact with
electronic equipment
and causing damage
213

Page 3 of 4 HS/UOS/FR/038/04
 214

Assembly/testing
Manual handling Personal injury resulting Operator Keep any spare/loose equipment locked 1 2 2
from someone in the lab away. Make it clear that the equipment that
getting hold of and is left out should not be tampered with by
tampering with the using signage.
controller or any other
loose equipment during
construction

Design of control systems on
LabView
Electrical assembly and testing Manual handling
Desk-based RSI, back pain and eye Operator Adjust chair to right height at beginning of 2 1 2
strain from poor posture session. Use of wrist supports. Take regular
and inadecuate breaks.
computer workstation
set-up.
Personal injury resulting Operator Make sure all systems have no supply 3 2 6 no
from testing of control power when being installed. When testing
systems on the moving stay clear of locomitve. Design in fail-safe
parts of the locomotive methods of stopping all control systems.
e.g motors, energy
recovery system (if
using a flywheel)

Assembly/testing Fire Burns - Overheating, Operator & Ensure a fire extinguisher is at hand and a 1 3 3 no
wires shorting, bystanders saftey procedure is established. When
malfuctioning working on the train ensure power supplies
equiptment are disconnected and the train is grounded.

Testing Vehicle Crushing, bruising, Operator & Take extra care when moving the train or 1 2 2 no
impact injuries - moving bystanders bogies from a standstill, with enough space
train or bogies with between the train/bogies and any
others in immediate bystanders
vicinity
Electrical assembly and testing Electrical Electrocution and burns - Operator Using safe electrical practice during 1 3 3 no
wiring motors, batteries, electrical assembly and testing
etc. incorrectly or
unsafely
Heavy lifting Manual handling Back injuries, bruising Operator Using correct lifting techniques, getting 1 2 2 no
or crushing - lifting assistance where required or using the
heavy loads incorrectly crane if required.
or unsafely
Cutting Machinery Cuts, amputation - Operator Machine safety features and procedures 1 4 4 no
incorrect use of cutting resulting from required training having been
machinery carried out.
APPENDIX B. RISK ASSESSMENT

Page 4 of 4 HS/UOS/FR/038/04
C. Traction Data Sheets

Technical Data

Inductance @ 15kHz
Torque Constant
No Load Current

Armature Inertia
Speed Constant

Peak Efficiency
Resistance DC

Rated Voltage

Rated Current

Rated Torque
Rated Speed
Peak Current

Rated Power
Peak Power
Armature
Armature
Motor A Nm/A Rpm/V mΩ µH Kgm^2 kW % A kW Rpm V A Nm

D127 4 0.134 62 21 15 0.0236 21 90 400 7.10 3720 60 140 18.2

126 18 0.055 140 185 8 0.0234 7 76 400 4.30 3360 24 240 12.2

127 5 0.12 68 24 23 0.0236 16 89 400 5.54 3264 48 140 16.2

LMC LMC
95 8 0.101 95 21 18 0.0238 16 88 400 7.2 3420 36 200 16.5

LMC LMC

LMC LMC
Marine Drive Syste
Label QTY PartNo. Description
A1 1 LEM 00010 P Shaft

LMC LMC
A2 1 LEM 00008 P Hub
A3 1 LEM 00009 P Cap
A4 2 LEM 00012 P Terminal post
A5 2 LEM 00011 P Terminal plate
A6 1 LEM 00004 P Band cover
A7 1 LEM 00006 P Commutator casting
A8 1 LEM 00007 P Drive casting
A9 1 LEM 00003 S Brush holder & Extrustions Sub-Assy

LMC
A10 1 LEM 00035 P Brush Cover
A11 16 LEM 00038 P Drive magnets
A12 1 LEM 00037 P Bearing
A13 1 LEM 00039 S Armature
Dimensions: MM

LCM Limited, Lynch Motor Company Ltd, Unit 27,

Flightway Business Park, Dunkeswell, Honiton, Devon EX14 4RJ
Tel: +44 (0) 1404 892940 Fax:+44 (0) 1404 891990
email: sales@lmcltd.net www.lmcltd.net

215
216 APPENDIX C. TRACTION DATA SHEETS

3000W Single Output Power Supply RSP-3000 series

Features :
AC input 180 ~ 264VAC
AC input active surge current limiting
High efficiency up to 90%
Built-in active PFC function,PF>0.95
Protections: Short circuit / Overload / Over voltage / Over temperature
/ Fan alarm
Forced air cooling by built-in DC with fan speed control function
Output voltage can be trimmed between 20~110% of the rated output voltage
High power density 15.6W/inch3
Current sharing up to 3 units
Alarm signal output (relay contact and TTL signal)
Built-in 12V/0.1A auxiliary output for remote control
Built-in remote ON-OFF control
Built-in remote sense function
3 years warranty
SPECIFICATION
MODEL RSP-3000-12 RSP-3000-24 RSP-3000-48
DC VOLTAGE 12V 24V 48V
RATED CURRENT 200A 125A 62.5A
CURRENT RANGE 0 ~ 200A 0 ~ 125A 0 ~ 62.5A
RATED POWER 2400W 3000W 3000W
RIPPLE & NOISE (max.) Note.2 150mVp-p 150mVp-p 200mVp-p
OUTPUT VOLTAGE ADJ. RANGE 10.8 ~ 13.2V 22 ~ 28V 43 ~ 56V
VOLTAGE TOLERANCE Note.3 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
LINE REGULATION 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
LOAD REGULATION 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
SETUP, RISE TIME 1000ms, 80ms at full load
HOLD UP TIME (Typ.) 10ms at full load
VOLTAGE RANGE 180 ~ 264VAC 254 ~ 370VDC
FREQUENCY RANGE 47 ~ 63Hz
POWER FACTOR (Typ.) 0.95/230VAC at full load
INPUT EFFICIENCY (Typ.) 86% 90% 90.5%
AC CURRENT (Typ.) 20A/180VAC 16A/230VAC
INRUSH CURRENT (Typ.) 60A/230VAC
LEAKAGE CURRENT <2.0mA / 240VAC
100 ~ 110% rated output power
OVERLOAD
User adjustable continuous constant current limiting or constant current limiting with delay shutdown after 5 seconds, re-power on to recover
13.8 ~ 16.8V 28.8 ~ 33.6V 57.6 ~ 67.2V
PROTECTION OVER VOLTAGE
Protection type : Shut down o/p voltage, re-power on to recover
90 5 (12V), 110 5 (24V), 105 5 (48V) (TSW1: detect on heatsink of power transistor)
OVER TEMPERATURE 90 5 (12V), 85 5 (24V), 75 5 (48V) (TSW2 : detect on heatsink of o/p diode)
Protection type : Shut down o/p voltage, recovers automatically after temperature goes down
AUXILIARY POWER(AUX) 12V@0.1A(Only for Remote ON/OFF control)
REMOTE ON/OFF CONTROL Please see the Function Manual
FUNCTION ALARM SIGNAL OUTPUT Please see the Function Manual
OUTPUT VOLTAGE TRIM 2.4 ~ 13.2V 4.8 ~ 28V 9.6 ~ 56V
CURRENT SHARING Please see the Function Manual
WORKING TEMP. -20 ~ +70 (Refer to output load derating curve)
WORKING HUMIDITY 20~90% RH non-condensing
ENVIRONMENT STORAGE TEMP., HUMIDITY -40 ~ +85 , 10 ~ 95% RH
TEMP. COEFFICIENT 0.05%/ (0 ~ 50 )
VIBRATION 10 ~ 500Hz, 2G 10min./1cycle, 60min. each along X, Y, Z axes
SAFETY STANDARDS UL60950-1, TUV EN60950-1 approved
WITHSTAND VOLTAGE I/P-O/P:3KVAC I/P-FG:1.5KVAC O/P-FG:0.5KVAC
SAFETY & ISOLATION RESISTANCE I/P-O/P, I/P-FG, O/P-FG:100M Ohms / 500VDC / 25 / 70% RH
EMC EMI CONDUCTION & RADIATION Compliance to EN55022 (CISPR22)
(Note 4)
HARMONIC CURRENT Compliance to EN61000-3-2,-3
EMS IMMUNITY Compliance to EN61000-4-2,3,4,5,6,8,11; ENV50204, EN55024, light industry level, criteria A
MTBF 104.5K hrs min. MIL-HDBK-217F (25 )
OTHERS DIMENSION 278*177.8*63.5mm (L*W*H)
PACKING 4Kg; 4pcs/16Kg/1.89CUFT
1. All parameters NOT specially mentioned are measured at 230VAC input, rated load and 25 of ambient temperature.
NOTE
2. Ripple & noise are measured at 20MHz of bandwidth by using a 12" twisted pair-wire terminated with a 0.1uf & 47uf parallel capacitor.
3. Tolerance : includes set up tolerance, line regulation and load regulation.
4. The power supply is considered a component which will be installed into a final equipment. The final equipment must be re-confirmed that it still meets
EMC directives.
File Name:RSP-3000-SPEC 2009-06-12
D. Supercapacitor Data Sheets

DATASHEET 48V MODULES

FEATURES AND BENEFITS* TYPICAL APPLICATIONS

Up to 1,000,000 duty cycles or Hybrid vehicles
10 year DC life Rail
48V DC working voltage Heavy industrial equipment
Active cell balancing UPS systems
Temperature output
Overvoltage outputs available
High power density

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
ELECTRICAL BMOD0083 P048 B01 BMOD0165 P048 BXX
Rated Capacitance1 83 F 165 F
Minimum Capacitance, initial1 83 F 165 F
Maximum Capacitance, initial1 100 F 200 F
Maximum ESR DC, initial1 10 mΩ 6.3 mΩ
Test Current for Capacitance and ESR DC1 100 A 100 A
Rated Voltage 48 V 48 V
Absolute Maximum Voltage2 51 V 51 V
Absolute Maximum Current 1,150 A 1,900 A
Leakage Current at 25oC, maximum3 3.0 mA 5.2 mA
Maximum Series Voltage 750 V 750 V
Capacitance of Individual Cells11 1,500 F 3,000 F
Stored Energy, Individual Cell11 1.5 Wh 3.0 Wh
Number of Cells 18 18
TEMPERATURE
Operating Temperature (Cell Case Temperature)
Minimum -40oC -40oC
Maximum 65oC 65oC
Storage Temperature (Stored Uncharged)
Minimum -40oC -40oC
Maximum 70oC 70oC

*Results may vary. Additional terms and conditions, including the limited warranty, apply at the time of purchase.
See the warranty details and enclosed information for applicable operating and use requirements.

Page 1 Document number: 1009365.13 maxwell.com

217
218 APPENDIX D. SUPERCAPACITOR DATA SHEETS

DATASHEET 48V MODULES

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS (Cont’d)

PHYSICAL BMOD0083 B01 BMOD0165 BXX
Mass, typical 10.3 kg 13.5 kg
Power Terminals M8/M10 M8/M10
Recommended Torque - Terminal 20/30 Nm 20/30 Nm
Vibration Specification SAE J2380 SAE J2380
Shock Specification SAE J2464 SAE J2464
Environmental Protection IP65 IP65
Cooling Natural Convection Natural Convection
MONITORING / CELL VOLTAGE MANAGEMENT
Internal Temperature Sensor NTC Thermistor NTC Thermistor
Temperature Interface Analog Analog
Cell Voltage Monitoring Overvoltage Alarm Overvoltage Alarm
Connector Deutsch DTM Deutsch DTM
Cell Voltage Management VMS 2.0 VMS 2.0
POWER & ENERGY
Usable Specific Power, Pd4 2,700 W/kg 3,300 W/kg
Impedance Match Specific Power, Pmax5 5,600 W/kg 6,800 W/kg
Specific Energy, Emax6 2.6 Wh/kg 3.9 Wh/kg
Stored Energy7 27 Wh 53 Wh

SAFETY
Short Circuit Current, typical
(Current possible with short circuit from rated voltage. Do not 4,800 A 7,600 A
use as an operating current.)
UL810a (B01 & B06 only,
Certifications RoHS
150 Volts)
High-Pot Capability12 2,500 VDC 2,500 VDC

Page 2 Document number: 1009365.13 maxwell.com

 219

DATASHEET 48V MODULES

TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS
THERMAL CHARACTERISTICS BMOD0083 B01 BMOD0165 BXX
Thermal Resistance (Rca, All Cell Cases to
0.40oC/W 0.40oC/W
Ambient), typical8
Thermal Capacitance (Cth), typical 7,700 J/ Co
13,000 J/oC
Maximum Continuous Current (∆T = 15 °C) 8
61 A, RMS 77 A, RMS
Maximum Continuous Current (∆T = 40 °C)8 100 A, RMS 130 A, RMS

LIFE
DC Life at High Temperature1
(held continuously at Rated Voltage and Maximum Operating 1,500 hours 1,500 hours
Temperature)
Capacitance Change 20% 20%
(% decrease from minimum initial value)
ESR Change 100% 100%
(% increase from maximum initial value)

Projected DC Life at 25°C1 10 years 10 years

(held continuously at Rated Voltage)
Capacitance Change 20% 20%
(% decrease from minimum initial value)
ESR Change 100% 100%
(% increase from maximum initial value)

Projected Cycle Life at 25°C 1,9,10 1,000,000 cycles 1,000,000 cycles

Capacitance Change 20% 20%
(% decrease from minimum initial value)
ESR Change 100% 100%
(% increase from maximum initial value)
Test Current 100 A 100 A
Shelf Life 4 years 4 years
(Stored uncharged at 25°C)

Page 3 Document number: 1009365.13 maxwell.com

220 APPENDIX D. SUPERCAPACITOR DATA SHEETS

DATASHEET 48V MODULES

ESR AND CAPACITANCE VS TEMPERATURE

180%
Capacitance
DC ESR
170%

160%
Percentage change from value at 25°C

150%

140%

130%

120%

110%

100%

90%

80%
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Temperature (°C)

NOTES
1. Capacitance and ESRDC measured at 25°C using 8. ∆T=IRMS2 x ESR x Rca
specified test current per waveform below. 9. Cycle using specified test current per waveform
2. Absolute maximum voltage, non-repeated. Not to below.
exceed 1 second. 10. Cycle life varies depending upon application-specific
3. After 72 hours at rated voltage. Initial leakage current characteristics. Actual results will vary.
can be higher. 11. Per United Nations material classification UN3499, all
0.12V2 Maxwell ultracapacitors have less than 10 Wh capacity
4. Per IEC 62391-2, Pd = ESR x mass to meet the requirements of Special Provisions
DC

V2 361. Both individual ultracapacitors and modules

5. Pmax = composed of those ultracapacitors shipped by
4 x ESRDC x mass
Maxwell can be transported without being treated
6. Emax = ½ CV2 as dangerous goods (hazardous materials) under
3,600 x mass transportation regulations.
12. Duration = 60 seconds. Not intended as an operating
7. Estored = ½ CV2
parameter.
3,600

Page 4 Document number: 1009365.13 maxwell.com

E. Battery Data Sheet

Sealed Lead-Acid Battery

General Purpose 727-0408(12V55Ah)
Specification
Cells Per Unit 6 Applications
Voltage Per Unit 12
Capacity 55.0Ah@10hr-rate to 1.80V per cell @250C All purpose
Weight Approx 16.5 kg Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS)
Max. Discharge Current 660A (5 sec) Electric Power System (EPS)
Internal Resistance Approx 7.5mÙ Emergency backup power supply
Discharge : -15 500C (5 1220F) Emergency light
Operating Temp.Range Charge : 0 400C (32 1040F)
Railway signal
Storage : -15 400C (5 1040F)
Aircraft signal
Nominal Operating Temp. Range 25 30C (77 50F )
Alarm and security system
Float charging Voltage 13.5 to 13.8 VDC/unit Average at 25 C 0

Electronic apparatus and equipment

Recommended Maximum Charging 16.5A
Current Limit Communication power supply
Equalization and Cycle Service 14.4 to 15.0 VDC/unit Average at 25 C
0 DC power supply
The batteries can be stored for more than 6 months Auto control system
Self Discharge at 25 0C . Self-discharge ratio less than 3% per month
0
at 25 C . Please charge batteries before using.
Terminal T6
A.B.S. (UL94-HB) , Flammability resistance of UL94-V0
Container Material can be available upon request.

Dimensions
Unit: mm Dimension: 229(L) 138(W) 205(H) 211(TH)
Terminal T6
6 [0.63]
M6 [0.236]
6 [0.236]
138 2
211 2
205 2

180
229 2

0
Constant Current Discharge Characteristics : A (25 C ) Amps
F.V/Time 5min 10min 15min 20min 30min 45min 1h 2h 3h 4h 5h 6h 8h 10h 20h
1.85V/cell 94.1 74.0 62.9 52.6 41.8 31.7 25.9 16.5 13.1 10.7 8.60 7.49 6.08 5.19 2.83
1.80V/cell 126.4 94.6 76.0 62.2 49.4 36.8 29.0 18.0 14.1 11.4 9.23 8.03 6.45 5.50 2.86
1.75V/cell 142.5 103.9 83.1 66.9 51.3 38.2 30.4 18.7 14.3 11.6 9.46 8.25 6.56 5.56 2.89
1.70V/cell 156.9 113.3 88.7 70.4 53.3 39.7 31.3 19.4 14.7 11.9 9.71 8.42 6.65 5.61 2.94
1.65V/cell 173.0 122.2 94.3 74.7 56.3 40.7 32.4 20.0 15.3 12.4 9.98 8.61 6.75 5.73 2.98
1.60V/cell 190.8 132.7 100.8 79.6 59.4 42.5 33.6 20.7 15.8 12.7 10.3 8.79 6.82 5.79 3.00

Constant Power Discharge Characteristics : W (25 0C ) Watts

F.V/Time 5min 10min 15min 20min 30min 45min 1h 2h 3h 4h 5h 6h 8h 10h 20h
1.85V/cell 172.1 136.7 117.4 99.2 79.7 60.9 50.0 32.1 25.5 20.9 16.9 14.7 12.0 10.3 5.61
1.80V/cell 228.6 172.6 140.0 115.6 92.7 70.2 55.7 34.8 27.2 22.2 18.0 15.7 12.7 10.9 5.66
1.75V/cell 252.2 186.6 151.0 123.1 95.4 72.2 58.0 35.9 27.6 22.6 18.4 16.1 12.9 11.0 5.70
1.70V/cell 270.0 198.8 159.0 128.4 98.7 74.8 59.7 37.3 28.4 23.1 18.9 16.4 13.0 11.1 5.81
1.65V/cell 293.6 212.6 167.8 135.4 103.3 76.0 61.2 38.1 29.4 23.8 19.3 16.7 13.2 11.3 5.88
1.60V/cell 316.3 225.5 176.5 142.7 108.3 78.8 63.1 39.2 30.2 24.5 19.9 17.0 13.3 11.4 5.90

221
222 APPENDIX E. BATTERY DATA SHEET

Effect of Temperature on Long Term Float Life Self Discharge Characteristics

100
10 100C A
8 80
250C
6

Remaining Capacity(%)
B
5 60
Charging voltage :
4 0
30 C
2.25V/cell 400C
40
Life expectancy(year)

2 C
20

0
1 2 4 6 8 10 12
Storage Time(Months)
0.5
20 30 40 50 0
C No supplementary charge required
68 86 104 O A (Carry out supplementary charge before use if 100% capacity is required.)
122 F
Battery temperature Supplementary charge required before use.Optional charging way as below:
1.Charged for above 3 days at limted current 0.25CA and constant volatge 2.25V/cell.
B
2.Charged for above 20hours at limted current 0.25CA and constant volatge 2.45V/cell.
3.Charged for 8~10hours at limted current 0.05CA .
Avoid this storage period unless regular Top charge.
C Supplementary charge may often fail to recover the full capacity

Float Charging Characteristics Discharge Characteristics

Charge Charging Charging Temperature:25 0 C(77F)

0

Volume Current Voltage

0
13.0
0.10CA-2.25V/cell temperature25 C
% (XCA) (V)

12.0
0.25
120 15.0
110 Charged Volume
Terminal Voltage(V)

11.0
0.20
100
14.0 0.093C 0.05C
90 Charge Voltage 0.207C
80 10.0 0.4C
0.15 (Constant 2.25v/cell)
70 13.0
1C 0.628C
60 9.0
After 50% Discharge
50 0.10
12.0
40 After 100% Discharge
30 8.0
0.05 11.0 3C 2C
20
10 Charging Current
1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 2 4 6 8 10 20
0 0
Min H
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40

Charging Time(hours) Discharge Time

Available Capacity Sub ject to Temperature

Battery Type -20 -10 0 5 10 20 25 30 40 45

AGM 46% 66% 76% 83% 90% 98% 100% 103% 107% 109%
6V&12V
Battery

Discharge Current VS. Discharge Voltage Maintenance & Cautions

Final Discharge
Voltage V/cell 1.80V 1.75V 1.60V Float Service:
Discharge A 0.2C 0.2C A 1.0C A 1.0C It is recommended to check battery/Float voltage each month.
Current (A)
Equalisation charge:

Equalisation charging is recommended once every 3 to 6 months using.

Charge the batteries at least once every six months, Discharge 100% rated capacity.
if they are stored at 25 0C .
Charge 2.35v/cell constant voltage, maximum 0.3CA 24hrs.
Charging Method: Cyclic Service:

Constant Voltage -0.2Cx2h+2.4~2.45V/Cellx24h,Max. Current 0.3CA Temperature compensation for varying temperatures:

Constant Current 0.1C until the voltage reaching 14.4V,then 0.1Cx4h -Charge voltage -3mV/Cell/degC from 25degC norm.

The service life of your battery will be affected by:

-The number of discharge cycles, depth of discharge, ambient

temperature and charging voltage.

Pb
Issue date: Oct. 2014
 6 5 4 3 2 1
F.
A
10.7
DETAIL B
D
SCALE 2 : 1 D
R2.8
B R5.0
88.0 .2
7.8

45.0
R8.0 1.6 X 45 Chamfer
72

69
9
27.5

250
64.0 +.05
R20.0 -
.00
C C C

(10 MIN)
10

SEE DETAIL C
R8.0

(31.7)
5 HOLES OF DIAMETER 45mm

223
EQUISPACED AROUND WHEEL
EDMC Drawings

A 31.7

B 35.0 B
(R20.0)
(R32.0) SECTION A-A
R25.0 MAX
SCALE 1 : 3
NOTES:
- ALL SHARP EDGES TO BE CHAMFERED OR FILLET BY AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT, UNLESS OTHERWISE
STATED, SUCH THAT ASSEMBLY P21-BOG-WHL CAN STILL BE ASSEMBLED.
- FINISH: FINE TURNED TREAD AND BORE.
- VALUES IN BRACKETS ARE REFERENCE VALUES AND SHOULD BE USED AS SUCH
DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS
Charlie Mehta OTHERWISE STATED
DO NOT SCALE LINEAR DIMENSION
MASS COST DESIGNED BY X = 0.5mm
X.X = 0.1mm
N/A Charlie Mehta
EDGES SHOULD ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
A X= 1 A
DATE SCALE XX = 1
BE FILLET 08/10/2014 1:2 ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm TITLE
A3 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
PROJECT CONTACT NUMBER MATERIAL TEXTURE SURFACE FINISH
10 MIN DETAIL C Wheel
GDP 21 07923377636 EN8
SHEET NO. OF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION
SCALE 2 : 1 REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON. DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
1 8 P21-BOG P21-BOG-WHL-001 1
IF IN DOUBT, ASK
6 5 4 3 2 1
 224

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

(7.0 MIN)

(R25.0) (5.0)
F F
( 35.0) R2.0 MIN
(5.0)

IN
M
(R20.0 MAX) R1.0 MIN

.0
10
C
B
(R25.0 MAX)

10.0 MAX
E (1.25) E
DETAIL B DETAIL C DETAIL D
( 40.0)
SCALE 3 : 1 SCALE 3 : 1 SCALE 3 : 1

234.7

164.7

158.7
72.6
D D
59.4
FOR SLOT DIMENSIONS 46.2
PLEASE SEE SLOT
33.0
DIMENSION TABLE
19.8
6.6

D
5.0

40.0 MAX
35.0 MAX
50.0 MAX

C C C

5.8

85.8 6
52.4
99.0
SYMMETRICAL ON OTHER SIDE
113.7 OF LINE
SECTION A-A

A
4.75 INCHES MINIMUM

157.7
B B

NOTES:
- ALL SHARP EDGES TO BE CHAMFERED OR FILLET BY AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT, UNLESS OTHERWISE
STATED, SUCH THAT ASSEMBLY P21-BOG-WHL CAN STILL BE ASSEMBLED.
- VALUES IN BRACKETS ARE REFERENCE VALUES AND SHOULD BE USED AS SUCH
SLOT DIMENSION TABLE - IF A CAD MODEL IS REQUIRED, I CAN SUPPLY IT. E-MAIL: CM14G11@SOTON.AC.UK
A (mm) B (mm) C (mm) - DIMENSIONS IN THE FORM XX.XX HAVE A TOLERANCE OF 0.01mm
35 33.0 MAX 1.6 MIN - GROOVES ARE FOR CIRCLIPS TO BE INSERTED, THUS CRITICAL TO GET RIGHT
40 37.5 MAX 2.0 MIN DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS
Charlie Mehta OTHERWISE STATED
50 47.0 MAX 2.2 MIN DO NOT SCALE LINEAR DIMENSION
X = 0.5mm
MASS COST DESIGNED BY
X.X = 0.1mm
N/A Charlie Mehta
ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
X= 1
A DATE SCALE XX = 1 A
01/12/2014 1:1 ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm TITLE
A2 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
PROJECT CONTACT NUMBER MATERIAL TEXTURE SURFACE FINISH
Axle
GDP 21 07923377636 EN8
SHEET NO. OF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION
APPENDIX F. EDMC DRAWINGS

REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON. DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. 1 4 P21-BOG P21-BOG-WHL-001 1
IF IN DOUBT, ASK
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
 6 5 4 3 2 1

10.0
A

D
DETAIL B D
SCALE 3 : 1

100
R1.20 Fillet

(R25.0 MIN)
R1.0 MAX
R1.0 MIN

10.0 MAX
B
C C

40.0 MIN
50.0 MIN

B B
R1.20
Fillet
(2.5)
200
A
5.0

SCALE 1 : 2
40.0 MIN SECTION A-A
DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS
Charlie Mehta OTHERWISE STATED
DO NOT SCALE LINEAR DIMENSION
MASS COST DESIGNED BY X = 0.5mm
X.X = 0.1mm
N/A David Wikramaratna
ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
A X= 1 A
DATE SCALE XX = 1
NOTES: 02/12/2014 1:1 ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm TITLE
A3 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED
- ALL SHARP EDGES TO BE CHAMFERED OR FILLET BY AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT, UNLESS
PROJECT CONTACT NUMBER MATERIAL TEXTURE SURFACE FINISH
OTHERWISE STATED, SUCH THAT ASSEMBLY P21-BOG-WHL CAN STILL BE ASSEMBLED. Brake Disc
GDP 21 07923377636 EN8
- VALUES IN BRACKETS ARE REFERENCE VALUES AND SHOULD BE USED AS SUCH SHEET NO. OF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON. DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
1 4 P21-BOG P21-BRK-001 1
IF IN DOUBT, ASK
225

6 5 4 3 2 1
 226

6 5 4 3 2 1

25.0 127.0

D 21.0 D
R12.5 MIN R20.0 MIN

R8.5

15.0

50.0
17.0
A

C (4.0) C
R2.0

15.0
4.0 MIN

32.0 41.5 DETAIL A

SCALE 2 : 1
(25.0) 5.0

10.0
(21.0)
25.0

B B
R12.5

25

217

SCALE 3 : 4

DRAWN BY TOLERANCES UNLESS

Charlie Mehta OTHERWISE STATED
DO NOT SCALE LINEAR DIMENSION
MASS COST DESIGNED BY X = 0.5mm
X.X = 0.1mm
N/A Charlie Mehta
ANGULAR DIMENSIONS
A X= 1 A
NOTES: DATE SCALE XX = 1
01/12/2014 1:1 ALL DIMENSIONS IN mm TITLE
- ALL SHARP EDGES TO BE CHAMFERED OR FILLET BY AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT, UNLESS A3 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED

OTHERWISE STATED. PROJECT CONTACT NUMBER MATERIAL TEXTURE SURFACE FINISH Suspension Adaptor
GDP 21 07923377636 Aluminum 6061
- VALUES IN BRACKETS ARE REFERENCE VALUES AND SHOULD BE USED AS SUCH.
SHEET NO. OF ASSEMBLY NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REVISION
REMOVE ALL SHARP EDGES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON. DO NOT COPY WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
1 16 P21-BOG P21-BOG-SUS-002 1
IF IN DOUBT, ASK
APPENDIX F. EDMC DRAWINGS

6 5 4 3 2 1
 1 2 3 4 5 6
G.
3rd ANGLE PROJECTION

A NOTE
BUSHES EITHER PRESSED or LOCTITED IN POSITION
WITH EQUAL PROTRUSION EITHER SIDE OF BAR

22 300 30

3/4" BORE SPH. BUSH

DRG.NO.
B

50
16 X 45°
(4 PLACES)
7/16" BORE SPH. BUSH

227
Drawbar Drawing

8.0
MATERIAL:- 50 X 8 MS BLACK FLAT TOLERANCES UNLESS STATED OTHERWISEISS.NO. AMENDMENT DATE:
NO DECIMALS - +/- 0,5mm
1 PLACE DECMLS. - +/- 0,1mm DRWN. BY: RC SCALE: N.T.S. DATE: 05/10/11
D FINISH:- 2 PLACES DECMLS. - +/- 0,05mm
THIS DRAWING IS CONFIDENTIAL & IS THE PROPERTY TITLE: DRAWBAR for STRAIN GAUGE TEST
SPECIAL NOTES:- OF THE F.S.M.R..
IT MUST NOT BE COPIED, LOANED OR SHOWN TO
THIRD PARTIES OR USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
CONSENT OF THE F.S.M.R. DRG.NO. ISS.NO. 1
FRIENDS of the STAPLEFORD MINIATURE RAILWAY TEL: 01487-822-794 e-mail: richcol@talk21.com
A4
H. Bosch Beam Calculations
8981 500 201 11/08 Aluminum Framing Linear Motion and Assembly Technologies Bosch Rexroth Corp. 16-9

Section 16: Engineering Data and Specifications

0.1 1 10 100 1000 f ( mm ) F

1

f
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 f ( mm )
F
2

f
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 f ( mm )
F
3

f
F [N] I [cm4]
2000 000

10 000
90 x 360H
1000 000

500 000 5 000

400 000 4 000
300 000 3 000
90 x 180H
200 000 2 000
150 000 1 500

100 000 1 000

45 x 180H 90 x 360H
22.5 x 180H 90 x 180H
500
50 000 400
300
90 x 90H
40 000
60 x 90H
30 000 200 90 x 90
20 000
45 x 90H
10 000 100
45x 90 60 x 90H

50 60 x 60H 45 x 180H
5 000
4 000 40 45 x 60H
3 000 30 60 x 60 45 x 90H
20
45 x 60H
2 000
45 x 90
1 500 15 45 x 45H
45 x 45 22.5 x 180H
1 000 10
30 x 45
22.5 x 45
500 5
20 x 40S
400 30 x 30 1S 30 x 45
300 3 30 x 30 22.5 x 45
200 2 20 x 20
F
10 000

20 000
1000

1500
2 000

3 000
4 000
5000
6000
7 000
8 000
9 000
100

200

300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0

L [mm ] x y 16
x y

Example: 1. F = 10000 N; 2. L = 800 mm; 3. f 3 max = 4 mm; min = 11.0 cm4 45 x 45

228
I. Additional Suspension Plots

229
230 APPENDIX I. ADDITIONAL SUSPENSION PLOTS
J. Bogie Curving Properties Code
from __future__ import division # because it makes sense
import math
import matplotlib . pyplot as plt

def curve (r , axldis , showgraph =1) :

""" ␣ r ␣ is ␣ radius ␣ of ␣ curve
␣ ␣ ␣ ␣ ␣ ␣ ␣ ␣ axldis ␣ is ␣ distance ␣ between ␣ axles """

g_min = 10.25 # gauge in inches

g_max = 10.5 # max gauge in inches

g = g_max # which are we testing ? might edit this later

inn = 0.242 # distance between inner wheel faces

fl_dia = 0.2656 # flange diameter

tr_dia = 0.249 # tread diameter

fl_wid = 0.00724
tr_wid = 0.026

router = r +0.5* met ( g )

rinner = r -0.5* met ( g )

# calculate virtual flange width , ie flange diameter at tread height ( or sth )

apothem = tr_dia *0.5 # tread radius
hypot = fl_dia *0.5 # flange radius

chord = 2* math . sqrt ( hypot **2 - apothem **2)

# align top flanges with rail

angle = math . acos (( axldis + chord ) *0.5/ router )
disp = router *(1 - math . sin ( angle ) )

## whl1 = ( - axldis *0.5 , r + 0.5* inn - disp )

## whl2 = ( - axldis *0.5 , r - 0.5* inn - disp )
## whl3 = ( axldis *0.5 , r + 0.5* inn - disp )
## whl4 = ( axldis *0.5 , r - 0.5* inn - disp )

whl1 = ( - axldis *0.5 , router - disp - fl_wid )

whl2 = ( - axldis *0.5 , router - inn - disp - fl_wid )
whl3 = ( axldis *0.5 , router - disp - fl_wid )
whl4 = ( axldis *0.5 , router - inn - disp - fl_wid )

# calculate distance from bottom flanges to rail

# ( ie whether arrangement is feasible )
angle2 = math . acos (( axldis - chord ) *0.5/ rinner )

231
232 APPENDIX J. BOGIE CURVING PROPERTIES CODE

disp2 = rinner *(1 - math . sin ( angle2 ) )

p1 = rinner - disp2
p2 = whl2 [1] - fl_wid

# circles
circle1 = plt . Circle ((0 ,0) ,r , ls = ’ dotted ’ , fill = False ) # centerline
circle2 = plt . Circle ((0 ,0) , rinner , fill = False )
circle3 = plt . Circle ((0 ,0) , router , fill = False )

# rectangles
rect1 = plt . Rectangle (( whl1 [0] -0.5* chord , whl1 [1]) , chord , fl_wid , color = ’ black ’)
rect2 = plt . Rectangle (( whl2 [0] -0.5* chord , whl2 [1] - fl_wid ) , chord , fl_wid , color = ’
black ’)
rect3 = plt . Rectangle (( whl3 [0] -0.5* chord , whl3 [1]) , chord , fl_wid , color = ’ black ’)
rect4 = plt . Rectangle (( whl4 [0] -0.5* chord , whl4 [1] - fl_wid ) , chord , fl_wid , color = ’
black ’)

rect5 = plt . Rectangle (( whl1 [0] -0.5* tr_dia , whl1 [1]+ fl_wid ) , tr_dia , tr_wid , color = ’
black ’)
rect6 = plt . Rectangle (( whl2 [0] -0.5* tr_dia , whl2 [1] - fl_wid - tr_wid ) , tr_dia , tr_wid ,
color = ’ black ’)
rect7 = plt . Rectangle (( whl3 [0] -0.5* tr_dia , whl3 [1]+ fl_wid ) , tr_dia , tr_wid , color = ’
black ’)
rect8 = plt . Rectangle (( whl4 [0] -0.5* tr_dia , whl4 [1] - fl_wid - tr_wid ) , tr_dia , tr_wid ,
color = ’ black ’)

fig = plt . gcf ()

# axes
ax = plt . gca ()
ax . cla ()
ax . set_xlim ( -0.8* axldis ,0.8* axldis )
ax . set_ylim (0.98* r ,1.02* r )
ax . set_aspect ( ’ equal ’)

## # points
## ax . plot ( whl1 [0] , whl1 [1] , ’ o ’, color = ’ black ’)
## ax . plot ( whl2 [0] , whl2 [1] , ’ o ’, color = ’ black ’)
## ax . plot ( whl3 [0] , whl3 [1] , ’ o ’, color = ’ black ’)
## ax . plot ( whl4 [0] , whl4 [1] , ’ o ’, color = ’ black ’)

# lines
ax . plot ([ whl1 [0] , whl1 [0]] , [ whl1 [1]+ fl_wid , whl1 [1]+ fl_wid + tr_wid ] , ’ -k ’)
ax . plot ([ whl2 [0] , whl2 [0]] , [ whl2 [1] - fl_wid , whl2 [1] - fl_wid - tr_wid ] , ’ -k ’)
ax . plot ([ whl3 [0] , whl3 [0]] , [ whl3 [1]+ fl_wid , whl3 [1]+ fl_wid + tr_wid ] , ’ -k ’)
ax . plot ([ whl4 [0] , whl4 [0]] , [ whl4 [1] - fl_wid , whl4 [1] - fl_wid - tr_wid ] , ’ -k ’)

fig . gca () . add_artist ( circle1 )

fig . gca () . add_artist ( circle2 )
fig . gca () . add_artist ( circle3 )

fig . gca () . add_artist ( rect1 )

 233

fig . gca () . add_artist ( rect2 )

fig . gca () . add_artist ( rect3 )
fig . gca () . add_artist ( rect4 )
## fig . gca () . add_artist ( rect5 )
## fig . gca () . add_artist ( rect6 )
## fig . gca () . add_artist ( rect7 )
## fig . gca () . add_artist ( rect8 )

if showgraph ==1:
plt . show ()

return ( p2 - p1 ) *1000

def met ( inch ) :

""" inch ␣ to ␣ metric ␣ ( output ␣ in ␣ meters ) """
return 0.0254* inch

def forloop () :
for i in range (0 ,1000) :
x = i /100.
a = curve (20 , x , showgraph =0)
print x , ’ meters ␣ = > ␣ ’ , a
return None