Date   

Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

devansprr
 

-- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

Dave Evans wrote:
The Mechanical Engineer's definition of "journal" is that portion of
the shaft that rotates within a bearing, AND the relative motion
between the two is sliding. There is NO sliding motion in a roller
bearing, so a roller bearing does not have a "journal".
I urge you to check any Car Builders Cyc in the period of this
list. The definitions for railroad use are quite clear.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA

Tony,

A fair point. My 1940 Car builders cyc is actually rather schizophrenic on this - if we want to adopt a clear naming convention based on the prototype of our era - I believe the term is "We're hosed"

In the cyc's definition of terms, there are two entries - one for Journal Bearings, and one for Roller bearings. There are also a WHOLE bunch of entries for "Journal xxx", but no "journal roller bearing", or "roller journal bearing". The definition of journal is the part of an axle or shaft on which the journal bearing rests.

The confusion is that the definition of Journal bearing includes rollers and balls (and then a reference to see roller bearings), along with the "traditional" journal bearing components.

Looking through the vendor documents, you can sense the source of the confusion. All of the roller bearing vendors used the term journal in their adds, but generally in reference to the "journal" not the bearing itself.

ASF promoted a roller bearing on the interior of the wheel that was supported by a fixed axle (good in curves since it will allow the wheels to rotate at different speeds.) Only the term roller bearing is used here - no journals.

Hyatt refers to the bearings as roller bearings only, although they were contained in a "journal box" and the "journal" part of the axle was where the bearing was pressed on. But their roller bearings are not referred to as journal bearings.

Timken uses the term roller bearing, or Timken bearing, but not journal bearing. They do stress the importance of a good journal box - mainly to maintain the oil supply - a feature no longer used today (just thin grease today, and only in select areas) (More on this later)

SKF seems to be the most confused - spherical bearings, spherical journal bearings, and even spherical roller journal bearing. Ughh..

Based on how the definitions and the ads are written, I would surmise that the industry knew it was confronting at least 50 years of long established journal bearing practice, and was caught between trying to promote a new and hopefully better technology while at the same time avoiding the perception that roller bearings were a major change that would obsolete equipment and the maintenance workforce (or require significant re-training).

Hence the conundrum.

But I would note that the terms "friction bearing", "plain" bearing and "solid" bearing do not appear in the cyclopedia. Anti-friction bearing does appear in some of the ads to describe roller bearings.

So while the prototype in the era may have been confused with the new technology and its terminology, we will either need to remain similarly confused, or adopt some form of standard convention.

As a mechanical engineer, I will stick with journal bearings (not to be confused with Journals, journal boxes, etc), and roller bearings. Plain, solid and friction are out for me. YMMV.

Dave Evans


Re: KCS Covered Hoppers series 29600-29649 and 29650-29749

Ed Hawkins
 

On Apr 26, 2012, at 4:15 PM, keyserlloyd wrote:

These four bay 40'-2" cars, built in 1946, were slab side all riveted construction. Possibly pre PS2 all welded cars? Originally delivered in black with white lettering. They had a "Load Limit cement-4'-4" below top of hatches". Can some one please tell me where these cars were loaded? Were they only loaded in cement? Were they on line cars only? I have a 1962 picture of a repaint that does not contain the cement load level line. I assure that by then they were in grain service.
Lloyd,
I cannot answer your questions about how and where these cars were used but will share some information about them.

I have 3 photos of these four-bay covered hopper cars. One is a Pullman builder's photo of 29621 from KCS 29600-29649, built 3-46, lot 5818 (photo also published in the 1949/51 CBC). The Pullman-Standard bill of materials for lot 5818 specified the cars were originally painted black with aluminum stencils. A 1" line about 3/4 the way up the car side has stencils above it stating "LOAD LIMIT FOR CEMENT 4' - 1 1/2" BELOW TOP OF HATCH".

The other two photos are KCS company photos of KCS 29671 and 29720. Both photos show a build date of 9-49. KCS 29650-29749 were built by GATC, builder's order no. 3013. They were shopped, repainted, and reweighed PG. (Pittsburg, Kansas) 3-53 and 6-54, respectively. The 29671 is painted black with aluminum (or possibly white) stencils while 29720 is painted gray with black stencils.

Interestingly, the lines on these two cars were drawn at different heights. The line on 29671 is lower, roughly 60% of the way up the side, but the stencils specify identical dimensions as the builder's photo. Perhaps the line was drawn in error (too low) since the stencils didn't change. The line on 29720 is at the same level as the Pullman builder's photo of 29621 with the same stencils.

The cubic capacity on the cars is 3190 cu. ft. In addition to hauling cement, it seems logical to me that the cars must have also been used for hauling lighter commodities in which the cubic capacity could be more fully utilized. For cement loading the cars were probably somewhere close to the purpose-built two-bay 1958 cu. ft. covered hoppers used extensively for hauling cement. The center of gravity would have been much lower on these cars when loaded to the line with cement. WIth 12 hatches and 8 outlets loading & unloading should have been faster than with conventional two-bay cars.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Dave Evans wrote:
The Mechanical Engineer's definition of "journal" is that portion of the shaft that rotates within a bearing, AND the relative motion between the two is sliding. There is NO sliding motion in a roller bearing, so a roller bearing does not have a "journal".
I urge you to check any Car Builders Cyc in the period of this list. The definitions for railroad use are quite clear.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

devansprr
 

Sorry Tony,

The Mechanical Engineer's definition of "journal" is that portion of the shaft that rotates within a bearing, AND the relative motion between the two is sliding. There is NO sliding motion in a roller bearing, so a roller bearing does not have a "journal".

Some in the railroad industry may have retained the term "journal" to refer to the entire assembly, or the portion of the truck that is fastened to the outer portion of the bearing, or even to the portion of the shaft that the roller bearing is pressed onto (a legacy use, but incorrect), but roller bearings are not journal bearings.

Today, roller bearings are often included with the axle assembly - it is not something installed in the field. The tapered rollers roll between a "cone", typically press fit onto the axle, and the cup, which is the outer, stationary assembly that is mechanically fixed to the truck. Roller bearings are actually pairs of tapered roller bearings at each truck side frame (So two pairs per axle) so they can also react the thrust loads that result from curves (rated at about about 25% of the radial load). It is the need to react thrust loads, without creating excessive surface loads on the rollers, that contributes to the fine tolerances required for railroad roller bearings, and hence why they are an integral assembly that is pressed onto a portion of the axle with a very high precision outer diameter. Perhaps some still call this region of the shaft a journal, but technically that is incorrect.

Nowhere in Timken's railroad literature does the term "journal bearing" appear. There is, in one of their maintenance guides, two instances where they interchange the word axle and journal, but ONLY when they discuss machining the axle to the proper diameter. But as soon as they discuss installing the bearing, it is installed on the axle, not a journal. The only other appearance of journal refers to publications.

So roller bearing and journal bearing are the proper engineering terms to distinguish between the two bearing types.

The term "Plain" bearing does not appear in any of my engineering books.

Dave Evans
BSME
MSME
Lehigh University

--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

Dave Evans wrote:
Gentlemen,
If we wish to be precise, then the term solid bearing is incorrect,
and in fact does not appear in engineering mechanics texts.
The bearings we are discussing are "journal" bearings, and they are
of the Hydrodynamic sub-type.
Nope. These bearings are journal bearings because they bear on
the axle journals. The journal is the part of the axle that the
bearings ride on. It does not matter whether they are roller bearings
or solid (or plain, if you prefer) bearings, they are all journal
bearings.


Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Roller Bearing advantage

Mikebrock
 

Well...what the hell...everyone else seems to have commented on some part of this subject so why not me?

From The Steam Locomotive by Ralph Johnson, Chief Engineer of Baldwin Locomotive Works, 1942, "Roughly it may be said , that the ratio of resistance in starting a car equipped with roller bearings, as compared to one equipped with solid bearings is eight to one in favor of the roller bearing". "As the speed of the train increases the difference in frictional resistance between the two types of bearings decreases rapidly, and above 10 mph the difference becomes very small. In cold weather the starting resistance of a train with solid bearings is quite high and therefore the acceleration of a train equipped with roller bearings is aided very materially". " As a general propostion it may be stated that, by the use of roller bearings, the journal friction will be reduced 50% at starting, approximately 10% from 5 to 35 mph and nothing above 35 mph".

Reckon he knows anything?

What do I call non roller bearings? Depends upon how many beers I have consumed.

Mike Brock


Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

John Hagen <sprinthag@...>
 

Very enlightening Dave and thanks for posting.



It would seem to me that the speed at which the oil layer would establish
itself would depend on how much weight was riding of the bearings. With the
weight of a loaded car versus that of an empty I think it would take a
higher speed to drag that oil completely around the bearing surface. And the
temperature would also effect it. In sub zero temps that oil is not going to
be easy to drag into that "squish" area.



I never really thought about all this but basically what has to happen the
lubricant must actually lift the weight of the car up off the bearing
surface. That fact that it even happens without an oil pump is somewhat
amazing to me. Here is a lesson for drivers. Even though your vehicles
engine has an oil pressures pump it takes a bit of time. Measured in
seconds, to get that pressure to the bearings. The colder the longer. That
is why all manufacturers recommend letting you engine idle for a bit before
moving off and not revving it even when not in gear.



If you have a relatively small car that can be easily pushed try pushing it
when it is fully warmed up. Then try it on a warm morning but before
driving. Lastly, wait for COLD weather and try pushing that now virtually
immobile block of icy metal. This will demonstrate just how resistant to
movement oil can become in frigid temps. Twenty-five years in the automotive
service business and I know the answers. It's a great thing to tell a
customer when he/she complains that the car gets poorer fuel mileage in cold
weather.



John Hagen



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Dave
Evans
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 17:25
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB





Gentlemen,

If we wish to be precise, then the term solid bearing is incorrect, and in
fact does not appear in engineering mechanics texts.

The bearings we are discussing are "journal" bearings, and they are of the
Hydrodynamic sub-type.

The term "anti-friction" bearing is applied to roller bearings and other
types of bearings where the main relative motion is rolling instead of
sliding.

I can understand why marketing types might then label Journal bearings
"friction" bearings, even if mechanical engineers never did.

Journal bearings use some form of lubrication between two sliding surfaces.
Hydrodynamic journal bearings draw lubricating oil into the bearing gap
using fluid mechanics. The lubricant is not under pressure (as it is in auto
engines, which use Hydrostatic journal bearings.)

From my engineering book:

"The film pressure is created by the moving surface itself pulling the
lubricant into a wedge shaped zone at a velocity sufficiently high to create
the pressure necessary to separate the surfaces against the load on the
bearing."

This is why the friction of hydrodynamic journal bearings can be so high
when they first begin to turn. They may first start with direct
metal-to-metal contact but even with a very thin oil film the drag can be
much higher than "normal". Since journal bearing friction is a function of
film thickness - the thinner the film, the higher the friction
(mathematically this friction is a function of one over the film thickness).
As speed increases the bearing is designed to induct more oil to create a
thicker film.

This is much different than roller bearings, and helps to explain why,
during the steam era, if the train got under a few mph and the locomotive
lacked the pull to accelerate, the train could just "grind" (figuratively,
not literally) to a halt. And it explains why steam era engineers didn't
walk out trains at very low speeds - better to keep the moving cars above
the speed that could lead to a sure stall as more cars were placed in motion
(and hence all of that slack action - a good reason for those buffered draft
gear and underframes).

So for steam era journal bearings, until the speed increased to a point
where the design film thickness was established, friction could actually
drop as speed increased. I do not know the "crossover" speed where drag
began to increase as speed increased. Conversely, this crossover speed was
also the speed where drag INCREASED as speed dropped. Perhaps it is in an
old railroad engineering book.

Makes one wonder if steam may have lasted a little longer if roller bearings
had been more widely applied - they are much easier to start and keep
rolling at low speeds, which was often a steam locomotive's greatest
challenge, and helps explain why steam locomotives pulling modern trains
under heavy loads seem to do so well - probably better than when they were
built.

This also explains why journal bearing cars appear to come to a sudden stop
in the last phase of coasting - they actually do stop quickly (think about
the implications for a journal bearing era hump yard.) As they slow, the
friction will increase significantly once the film begins to thin (and the
slower speed results in an even thinner film - so the friction rapidly
builds as the car comes to a stop). I bet hump rider's intuitively
understood this, even if they did not know the physics.

Richard is correct that once the steady state film thickness was established
(at some unknown, to me, speed) the friction increased with speed - but only
linearly, so the total friction per unit distance traveled was nearly
constant (no journal bearing fuel penalty for running faster - but there was
a fuel penalty for aerodynamic drag at higher speeds.) Note that friction
equals heat generation, so the high speed risk was that the heat generated
per unit time increased (but not per unit distance traveled), and it could
reach a point where the heat could not be rejected fast enough to the
atmosphere, and the oil would overheat, potentially resulting in loss of the
bearing film - and... Hot box)

And talk about Journal Bearing "hot boxes" - an older colleague at work once
told me stories of how when he was a kid, in Portage, PA (on the PRR main),
the kids use to take "those oily rags" out of the journal boxes in the
winter time to help start camp fires when they were outside playing ice
hockey. The innocence of youth....

Dave Evans

Nothing is ever fool proof, because fools are so ingenious ;-)

--- In STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , tyesac@...
wrote:

Richard, Pierre,

Right you are! If anybody thinks that solid bearings are obsolete
technology, think again. Anything driven by a crankshaft has solid bearings;
from a formula 1 race car to diesel locomotive. Properly lubricated, they're
a low resistance bearing that's able to tolerate heavy loads. A key issue
for the changeover for the railroads was that roller bearings have less
finicky lubrication requirements, typically only the roller cage requires
greasing at initial installation. Having large percentages of the freight
car fleet that doesn't require constant vigilance for oiling helped tip the
scales for the more expensive roller bearings.

Now if we could only get some model RR manufactures to drop the "friction
bearing" term.

Tom Casey


Thanks Richard, for that clarification. I've never been comfortable with
the "friction bearing" phrase myself and I've always wondered what the
correct term should be. In part because a solid bearing is closer to a
bushing than a bearing in my world of mechanical creations.
Pierre Oliver

--- In STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , Richard
Hendrickson <rhendrickson@> wrote:

Several times lately I have noticed members of this group using the
term "friction bearings" to differentiate solid bearings from roller
bearings, despite objections on previous occasions from myself, Tony
Thompson, and others. The correct terminology for solid truck
bearings is "solid." "Plain bearings" is an acceptable alternative.
"Friction bearings" is wrong and misleading. All bearings have
friction, including roller bearings. "Friction bearing" was invented
as an advertising ploy by roller bearing manufacturers to imply,
incorrectly, that roller bearings were frictionless. In fact, though
roller bearings have much less starting resistance than solid
bearings, they have considerable friction which - as with other
bearings - increases as load and speed increase. The term "friction
bearings" was never adopted by railroad mechanical engineers, who
knew better; it does not appear in the dictionary section of any
edition of the Car Builders' Cyclopedia. So please, guys, don't
perpetuate the mistake of calling solid bearings "friction" bearings.

Richard Hendrickson





-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre <pierre.oliver@...>
To: STMFC <STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Wed, Apr 25, 2012 7:49 pm
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB




Thanks Richard, for that clarification. I've never been comfortable with
the "friction bearing" phrase myself and I've always wondered what the
correct term should be. In part because a solid bearing is closer to a
bushing than a bearing in my world of mechanical creations.
Pierre Oliver

--- In STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , Richard
Hendrickson <rhendrickson@> wrote:

Several times lately I have noticed members of this group using the
term "friction bearings" to differentiate solid bearings from roller
bearings, despite objections on previous occasions from myself, Tony
Thompson, and others. The correct terminology for solid truck
bearings is "solid." "Plain bearings" is an acceptable alternative.
"Friction bearings" is wrong and misleading. All bearings have
friction, including roller bearings. "Friction bearing" was invented
as an advertising ploy by roller bearing manufacturers to imply,
incorrectly, that roller bearings were frictionless. In fact, though
roller bearings have much less starting resistance than solid
bearings, they have considerable friction which - as with other
bearings - increases as load and speed increase. The term "friction
bearings" was never adopted by railroad mechanical engineers, who
knew better; it does not appear in the dictionary section of any
edition of the Car Builders' Cyclopedia. So please, guys, don't
perpetuate the mistake of calling solid bearings "friction" bearings.

Richard Hendrickson





Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Dave Evans wrote:
Gentlemen,
If we wish to be precise, then the term solid bearing is incorrect, and in fact does not appear in engineering mechanics texts.
The bearings we are discussing are "journal" bearings, and they are of the Hydrodynamic sub-type.
Nope. These bearings are journal bearings because they bear on the axle journals. The journal is the part of the axle that the bearings ride on. It does not matter whether they are roller bearings or solid (or plain, if you prefer) bearings, they are all journal bearings.

Richard is correct that once the steady state film thickness was established (at some unknown, to me, speed) the friction increased with speed - but only linearly, so the total friction per unit distance traveled was nearly constant (no journal bearing fuel penalty for running faster - but there was a fuel penalty for aerodynamic drag at higher speeds.)
Tests showed that at speeds like 30 or 40 mph, the difference in rolling resistance between plain and roller bearings was negligible. The big difference, and as Dave say, a very important difference for steam power, was at starting speeds.

Note that friction equals heat generation, so the high speed risk was that the heat generated per unit time increased (but not per unit distance traveled), and it could reach a point where the heat could not be rejected fast enough to the atmosphere, and the oil would overheat, potentially resulting in loss of the bearing film - and... Hot box)
This is probably true, but my impression from reading and from talking to railroaders of that era is that hotboxes occurred because the waste would get snagged or bunched and get into the bearing surface, and presto, much reduced lubrication. This could and did happen at quite modest speeds. Whether really high-speed trains ever had hot boxes from speed alone, I don't know, but if so, one would expect a LOT of the cars in such a train to have the problem.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

devansprr
 

Gentlemen,

If we wish to be precise, then the term solid bearing is incorrect, and in fact does not appear in engineering mechanics texts.

The bearings we are discussing are "journal" bearings, and they are of the Hydrodynamic sub-type.

The term "anti-friction" bearing is applied to roller bearings and other types of bearings where the main relative motion is rolling instead of sliding.

I can understand why marketing types might then label Journal bearings "friction" bearings, even if mechanical engineers never did.

Journal bearings use some form of lubrication between two sliding surfaces. Hydrodynamic journal bearings draw lubricating oil into the bearing gap using fluid mechanics. The lubricant is not under pressure (as it is in auto engines, which use Hydrostatic journal bearings.)

From my engineering book:

"The film pressure is created by the moving surface itself pulling the lubricant into a wedge shaped zone at a velocity sufficiently high to create the pressure necessary to separate the surfaces against the load on the bearing."

This is why the friction of hydrodynamic journal bearings can be so high when they first begin to turn. They may first start with direct metal-to-metal contact but even with a very thin oil film the drag can be much higher than "normal". Since journal bearing friction is a function of film thickness - the thinner the film, the higher the friction (mathematically this friction is a function of one over the film thickness). As speed increases the bearing is designed to induct more oil to create a thicker film.

This is much different than roller bearings, and helps to explain why, during the steam era, if the train got under a few mph and the locomotive lacked the pull to accelerate, the train could just "grind" (figuratively, not literally) to a halt. And it explains why steam era engineers didn't walk out trains at very low speeds - better to keep the moving cars above the speed that could lead to a sure stall as more cars were placed in motion (and hence all of that slack action - a good reason for those buffered draft gear and underframes).

So for steam era journal bearings, until the speed increased to a point where the design film thickness was established, friction could actually drop as speed increased. I do not know the "crossover" speed where drag began to increase as speed increased. Conversely, this crossover speed was also the speed where drag INCREASED as speed dropped. Perhaps it is in an old railroad engineering book.

Makes one wonder if steam may have lasted a little longer if roller bearings had been more widely applied - they are much easier to start and keep rolling at low speeds, which was often a steam locomotive's greatest challenge, and helps explain why steam locomotives pulling modern trains under heavy loads seem to do so well - probably better than when they were built.

This also explains why journal bearing cars appear to come to a sudden stop in the last phase of coasting - they actually do stop quickly (think about the implications for a journal bearing era hump yard.) As they slow, the friction will increase significantly once the film begins to thin (and the slower speed results in an even thinner film - so the friction rapidly builds as the car comes to a stop). I bet hump rider's intuitively understood this, even if they did not know the physics.

Richard is correct that once the steady state film thickness was established (at some unknown, to me, speed) the friction increased with speed - but only linearly, so the total friction per unit distance traveled was nearly constant (no journal bearing fuel penalty for running faster - but there was a fuel penalty for aerodynamic drag at higher speeds.) Note that friction equals heat generation, so the high speed risk was that the heat generated per unit time increased (but not per unit distance traveled), and it could reach a point where the heat could not be rejected fast enough to the atmosphere, and the oil would overheat, potentially resulting in loss of the bearing film - and... Hot box)

And talk about Journal Bearing "hot boxes" - an older colleague at work once told me stories of how when he was a kid, in Portage, PA (on the PRR main), the kids use to take "those oily rags" out of the journal boxes in the winter time to help start camp fires when they were outside playing ice hockey. The innocence of youth....

Dave Evans

Nothing is ever fool proof, because fools are so ingenious ;-)

--- In STMFC@..., tyesac@... wrote:

Richard, Pierre,

Right you are! If anybody thinks that solid bearings are obsolete technology, think again. Anything driven by a crankshaft has solid bearings; from a formula 1 race car to diesel locomotive. Properly lubricated, they're a low resistance bearing that's able to tolerate heavy loads. A key issue for the changeover for the railroads was that roller bearings have less finicky lubrication requirements, typically only the roller cage requires greasing at initial installation. Having large percentages of the freight car fleet that doesn't require constant vigilance for oiling helped tip the scales for the more expensive roller bearings.

Now if we could only get some model RR manufactures to drop the "friction bearing" term.

Tom Casey


Thanks Richard, for that clarification. I've never been comfortable with the "friction bearing" phrase myself and I've always wondered what the correct term should be. In part because a solid bearing is closer to a bushing than a bearing in my world of mechanical creations.
Pierre Oliver

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@> wrote:

Several times lately I have noticed members of this group using the
term "friction bearings" to differentiate solid bearings from roller
bearings, despite objections on previous occasions from myself, Tony
Thompson, and others. The correct terminology for solid truck
bearings is "solid." "Plain bearings" is an acceptable alternative.
"Friction bearings" is wrong and misleading. All bearings have
friction, including roller bearings. "Friction bearing" was invented
as an advertising ploy by roller bearing manufacturers to imply,
incorrectly, that roller bearings were frictionless. In fact, though
roller bearings have much less starting resistance than solid
bearings, they have considerable friction which - as with other
bearings - increases as load and speed increase. The term "friction
bearings" was never adopted by railroad mechanical engineers, who
knew better; it does not appear in the dictionary section of any
edition of the Car Builders' Cyclopedia. So please, guys, don't
perpetuate the mistake of calling solid bearings "friction" bearings.

Richard Hendrickson





-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre <pierre.oliver@...>
To: STMFC <STMFC@...>
Sent: Wed, Apr 25, 2012 7:49 pm
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB




Thanks Richard, for that clarification. I've never been comfortable with the "friction bearing" phrase myself and I've always wondered what the correct term should be. In part because a solid bearing is closer to a bushing than a bearing in my world of mechanical creations.
Pierre Oliver

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@> wrote:

Several times lately I have noticed members of this group using the
term "friction bearings" to differentiate solid bearings from roller
bearings, despite objections on previous occasions from myself, Tony
Thompson, and others. The correct terminology for solid truck
bearings is "solid." "Plain bearings" is an acceptable alternative.
"Friction bearings" is wrong and misleading. All bearings have
friction, including roller bearings. "Friction bearing" was invented
as an advertising ploy by roller bearing manufacturers to imply,
incorrectly, that roller bearings were frictionless. In fact, though
roller bearings have much less starting resistance than solid
bearings, they have considerable friction which - as with other
bearings - increases as load and speed increase. The term "friction
bearings" was never adopted by railroad mechanical engineers, who
knew better; it does not appear in the dictionary section of any
edition of the Car Builders' Cyclopedia. So please, guys, don't
perpetuate the mistake of calling solid bearings "friction" bearings.

Richard Hendrickson



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: KCS Covered Hoppers series 29600-29649 and 29650-29749

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

lloyd keyser wrote:
These four bay 40'-2" cars, built in 1946, were slab side all riveted construction. Possibly pre PS2 all welded cars? . . . Were they only loaded in cement? Were they on line cars only?
Certainly pre-PS-2, as that design did not come into being until some years past 1946. They would also have had square hatches. In that day, covered hoppers were very predominantly used for cement, but you would need to find out if these might be exceptions. The four bays suggests a possibly non-cement use, as cement is pretty dense, and a 40-ft. car of cement would need to have more than 70 tons capacity, just at a guess.
Cement is produced at many locations around North America, is not a high-value product, and so is not usually transported long distances. But whether that keeps KCS cement traffic entirely on line, I don't know. Try Googling cement plants in the states served by KCS and see what you find.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


KCS Covered Hoppers series 29600-29649 and 29650-29749

lloyd keyser
 

These four bay 40'-2" cars, built in 1946, were slab side all riveted construction. Possibly pre PS2 all welded cars? Originally delivered in black with white lettering. They had a "Load Limit cement-4'-4" below top of hatches". Can some one please tell me where these cars were loaded? Were they only loaded in cement? Were they on line cars only? I have a 1962 picture of a repaint that does not contain the cement load level line. I assure that by then they were in grain service.


Re: Throwing Turnouts, was Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

John Hagen <sprinthag@...>
 

For sure, for sure good buddy. (:-)



Back in steam days freight cars were always being shuffled in and out of
turnout yards.



John Hagen



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Staffan Ehnbom
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:41 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: Throwing Turnouts, was [STMFC] Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB





Does this boring exchange have anything to do with freight cars?(:))

Staffan Ehnbom


Re: Throwing Turnouts, was Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

Staffan Ehnbom <staffan.ehnbom@...>
 

Does this boring exchange have anything to do with freight cars?(:))

Staffan Ehnbom


Re: Throwing Turnouts, was Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

Joel Holmes <lehighvalley@...>
 

Ya, than how come I have a femailman?

Joel

Joel,

That's "Turnout person" nowadays.



John Hagen



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Joel
Holmes
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 1:54 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: Throwing Turnouts, was [STMFC] Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs.
RB





Ya, but you will also need some turnoutmen.

Joel Holmes











Re: Throwing Turnouts, was Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

John Hagen <sprinthag@...>
 

Joel,



That's "Turnout person" nowadays.



John Hagen



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Joel
Holmes
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 1:54 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: Throwing Turnouts, was [STMFC] Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB





Ya, but you will also need some turnoutmen.

Joel Holmes


Throwing Turnouts, was Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Bruce F. Smith" <smithbf@...> wrote:


BTW, did Mr. Westcott call the location of the lever that operated the switch, and the target indicating switch position, the "turnout stand"? If not, I suggest the futility of the decision is self-evident ;^)

Regards

Bruce
Few people modeled things to that degree of accuracy back then... But, the electro-mechanical device that operated the switch points was always called a "switch machine", same term as applied to power operated devices that perform the same function on the prototype.

If Westcott was guilty of anything, it was adopting the prototype term that was more all inclusive for the subject mater he was writing about... after all, Lionel called them "switches", but I bet their customers would have been upset if all they got in the box was a couple point rails :)

It's the modelers themselves that adopted the term in the operating sense, but likely as much to avoid confusion with the block switches we all had to deal with as due to ignorance of the prototype operating term. The prototype didn't seem to have this problem... when the Chief told the dispatcher to "line the switch" on his CTC machine, he knew exactly what was being referred to. Then he grabbed the selector on his CTC panel and did it :)

Dennis


Re: Throwing Turnouts, was Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

Joel Holmes <lehighvalley@...>
 

Ya, but you will also need some turnoutmen.

Joel Holmes

So when I finally finish my HO model of the GB&W 0-6-0 #145 I should refer
to it as a "turnout engine?"



I've been following all this and I was somewhat surprised that there is
such
a term used on the prototype albeit mostly limited to the engineering
departments. For model railroading purposes operating department jargon is
most commonly used thus the possible confusion of the term "switch" with
the
very similar sounding term "switch."



John Hagen



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Bruce F. Smith
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 1:26 PM
To: <STMFC@...>
Subject: Re: Throwing Turnouts, was [STMFC] Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs.
RB





John,

You probably sent this before seeing the other responses, but this is not
correct. Turnout is most definitely a prototype railroad term, used by
railroad employees (track department) to denote the entire assemblage of
the
apparatus that allows a train to journey forth on one of two (or three)
tracks, Switch is also a prototype railroad term used by both the
operating
department and the track department to denote the moving parts of a
turnout.
As Tony clarified in his second message, the use of turnout was not
invented
as a model railroad term, but the insistence on never using "switch" was
an
editorial decision...

BTW, did Mr. Westcott call the location of the lever that operated the
switch, and the target indicating switch position, the "turnout stand"? If
not, I suggest the futility of the decision is self-evident ;^)

Regards

Bruce











Re: Throwing Turnouts, was Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

John Hagen <sprinthag@...>
 

So when I finally finish my HO model of the GB&W 0-6-0 #145 I should refer
to it as a "turnout engine?"



I've been following all this and I was somewhat surprised that there is such
a term used on the prototype albeit mostly limited to the engineering
departments. For model railroading purposes operating department jargon is
most commonly used thus the possible confusion of the term "switch" with the
very similar sounding term "switch."



John Hagen



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Bruce F. Smith
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 1:26 PM
To: <STMFC@...>
Subject: Re: Throwing Turnouts, was [STMFC] Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB





John,

You probably sent this before seeing the other responses, but this is not
correct. Turnout is most definitely a prototype railroad term, used by
railroad employees (track department) to denote the entire assemblage of the
apparatus that allows a train to journey forth on one of two (or three)
tracks, Switch is also a prototype railroad term used by both the operating
department and the track department to denote the moving parts of a turnout.
As Tony clarified in his second message, the use of turnout was not invented
as a model railroad term, but the insistence on never using "switch" was an
editorial decision...

BTW, did Mr. Westcott call the location of the lever that operated the
switch, and the target indicating switch position, the "turnout stand"? If
not, I suggest the futility of the decision is self-evident ;^)

Regards

Bruce


Throwing Turnouts, was Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

Richard Wilkens <railsnw@...>
 

Thank you Dennis, you beat me to it.

Richard Wilkens

--- In STMFC@..., "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...> wrote:

Steve,

Did you read what I wrote?



"A switchman can line a switch, but it takes the whole track gang to line a turnout."

Dennis

Tony,

Absolutely nothing wrong with the term "turnout", it's what the Engineering Dept. calls the whole assemblage... Switch, frog, guard rails, timber, etc.

The operating people only concern themselves with the switch, since that's the only thing they can move (unless they put something badly on the ground, then they can move a lot of things :)

Dennis


Re: Throwing Turnouts, was Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

Bruce Smith
 

John,

You probably sent this before seeing the other responses, but this is not correct. Turnout is most definitely a prototype railroad term, used by railroad employees (track department) to denote the entire assemblage of the apparatus that allows a train to journey forth on one of two (or three) tracks, Switch is also a prototype railroad term used by both the operating department and the track department to denote the moving parts of a turnout. As Tony clarified in his second message, the use of turnout was not invented as a model railroad term, but the insistence on never using "switch" was an editorial decision...

BTW, did Mr. Westcott call the location of the lever that operated the switch, and the target indicating switch position, the "turnout stand"? If not, I suggest the futility of the decision is self-evident ;^)

Regards

Bruce


Bruce F. Smith

Auburn, AL

https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/


"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."

__

/ &#92;

__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________

|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |

| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||

|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|

| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0

On Apr 26, 2012, at 1:10 PM, John Hagen wrote:

Turnout is a model railroad term used to avoid confusion with certain toggle
or push-button power routing devices.


Re: Throwing Turnouts, was Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

Joel Holmes <lehighvalley@...>
 

A turnoutman, now that is an interesting concept.

Joel Holmes

Dennis Storzek wrote:
Tony,
Absolutely nothing wrong with the term "turnout", it's what the
Engineering Dept. calls the whole assemblage... Switch, frog, guard
rails, timber, etc.
The operating people only concern themselves with the switch, since
that's the only thing they can move (unless they put something badly
on the ground, then they can move a lot of things :)
Yes, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise on the term itself.
When I did materials research on railroad rails, I was for a time on
the AAR Research Committee, and in fact co-authored some technical
papers on rail performance in conference proceedings, both American
and European. On that Committee, I heard lots of commentary from old-
head track supervisors, and as you say, the track guys think only of
turnouts.
But the Kalmbach/Westcott concept was never to refer to anything
about a turnout, including the switch part, as anything but a turnout.
Whether the avoidance of confusion with electrical switches was worth
it, I can't say.

Tony Thompson
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937;
e-mail: thompson@...

87001 - 87020 of 195529