Twenty-five versus 15 cycles for heavy railways

At the regular meeting of the Institute, on January 25 of this year, a paper was presented by Messrs. Stillwell and Putnam dealing with the electrification of steam railways and referring briefly to the question of the adoption of a standard frequency for single-phase railways. This question aroused a great deal of interest and was discussed at greater length than any other feature of the paper. The authors, while enumerating the advantages of both 25 and 15 cycles, drew the conclusion that the advantages were greatest on the side of the lower frequency, and this opinion was concurred in by most of those who discussed the matter. Many good points were brought out, but all were more or less general; and while it is obviously impossible for the Institute to standardize at this time a frequency for railways using alternating current, a free and full discussion of the matter can hardly fail to produce good results and to furnish more definite information than was available at the time the paper was presented. The arguments in favor of 25 cycles may be reduced to the following: 1. It is a standard frequency which is in use in a great many plants throughout the country. 2. It is probably better suited for general power distribution and is certainly better for lighting than 15 cycles; therefore any railroad having a 15-cycle plant for operating its road would be somewhat handicapped in power for lighting and shop purposes.