Date   

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

midrly <midrly@...>
 

Dennis--

Um, I'm one of those "operating people" as a conductor and loco engineer on a Canadian class one railway. I also have been handlaying some HO scale Code 55 and 70 turnouts the past little while. (Thanks be to FasTracks PC board ties!)

My afternoon job pays the bills, and constantly reminds me why I don't "throw a turnout". My back probably wouldn't be able to take it, and if I "threw turnouts" at work, there'd be multi-levels on the ground with my road buying a lot of new damaged Equinoxes and Terrains sans serial numbers.

Steve Lucas.

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



--- In STMFC@..., w m <bulletmims@> wrote:

I agree with Mike. "Throwing a turnout" (and "throwing a switch") is commonly used by those who work in the railroad industry (although it is not usually literally done in anger)...
Harumpf! The operating people on a railroad have very little idea what a turnout is, since all they deal with is the switch.

As I'm prone to say, "A switchman can line a switch, but it takes the whole track gang to line a turnout."

Dennis


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

Jeff Coleman
 

During my brakeman days we would throw a switch or line the iron or track. I do not recall any trainman using the word turnout.
Jeff Coleman

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



--- In STMFC@..., w m <bulletmims@> wrote:

I agree with Mike. "Throwing a turnout" (and "throwing a switch") is commonly used by those who work in the railroad industry (although it is not usually literally done in anger)...
Harumpf! The operating people on a railroad have very little idea what a turnout is, since all they deal with is the switch.

As I'm prone to say, "A switchman can line a switch, but it takes the whole track gang to line a turnout."

Dennis


Re: Weathering Lighter Colored Cars

Ryan Reed
 

Good idea, but I would agree with most artists, who would say
NEVER use white, use neutral gray.
Never say never in the world of weathering. If you use a straight Zinc White wash by itself, to try to lighten up existing weathering for example, your model may end up with a blue bounce that looks terrible so that's something I personally would avoid. But mixing Zinc White with umbers or whatever offers excellent results. Of course it all depends on the prototype rolling stock you're going off of with how you mix your oils, at least that's my first rule.

Ryan Reed


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

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., w m <bulletmims@...> wrote:

I agree with Mike. "Throwing a turnout" (and "throwing a switch") is commonly used by those who work in the railroad industry (although it is not usually literally done in anger)...
Harumpf! The operating people on a railroad have very little idea what a turnout is, since all they deal with is the switch.

As I'm prone to say, "A switchman can line a switch, but it takes the whole track gang to line a turnout."

Dennis


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

Brian Ehni <behni@...>
 

LMAO!


Thanks!
--

Brian P. Ehni

From: Mike Brock <brockm@...>
Reply-To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Date: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:23 AM
To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Subject: Re:Throwing Turnouts, was [STMFC] Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs.
RB







Actually, the term "throwing a turnout" is perfectly correct...if used in
the following terminology. When I was putting in a new siding at Buford [
now, Bruceford ], I bought what I thought was a Peco #8 right hand turnout
[ building a turnout at that location was difficult so I took the easy way
out...so I thought ]. It turned out to be a left hand and the result is that
I threw it some distance.

Mike Brock









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


Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

tyesac@...
 

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

Ed Mims
 

I agree with Mike. "Throwing a turnout" (and "throwing a switch") is commonly used by those who work in the railroad industry (although it is not usually literally done in anger). The terms that annoy me are "striup step" and "roof walk" when speaking of sill steps and running boards, respectively. Try and find these two in a Car Builders Dictionary.
 
Ed Mims
Jacksonville, FL


________________________________
From: Mike Brock <brockm@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:23 AM
Subject: Re:Throwing Turnouts, was [STMFC] Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB



 


Actually, the term "throwing a turnout" is perfectly correct...if used in
the following terminology. When I was putting in a new siding at Buford [
now, Bruceford ], I bought what I thought was a Peco #8 right hand turnout
[ building a turnout at that location was difficult so I took the easy way
out...so I thought ]. It turned out to be a left hand and the result is that
I threw it some distance.

Mike Brock




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


Throw the switch (was Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB)

Bruce Smith
 

Jack,

From my experience with train crews, "throw" and "line" are both proper usage, as are "set" and "return" in certain cases. There may also be regional or railroad variation in usage, or even variations among train crews.


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 10:05 AM, Jack Burgess wrote:

<I always though "throw" was the proper term, since you have to throw the
<lever over.
<
<
<Thanks!
<--
<
<Brian P. Ehni

I think the term is to "line" it...

Jack Burgess




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

Jack Burgess <jack@...>
 

<I always though "throw" was the proper term, since you have to throw the
<lever over.
<
<
<Thanks!
<--
<
<Brian P. Ehni

I think the term is to "line" it...

Jack Burgess


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

Mikebrock
 

Actually, the term "throwing a turnout" is perfectly correct...if used in the following terminology. When I was putting in a new siding at Buford [ now, Bruceford ], I bought what I thought was a Peco #8 right hand turnout [ building a turnout at that location was difficult so I took the easy way out...so I thought ]. It turned out to be a left hand and the result is that I threw it some distance.

Mike Brock


Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

Brian Ehni <behni@...>
 

I always though "throw" was the proper term, since you have to throw the
lever over.


Thanks!
--

Brian P. Ehni

From: "Bruce F. Smith" <smithbf@...>
Reply-To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Date: Thursday, April 26, 2012 8:17 AM
To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB






Steve,

This is one instance where supposedly prototype savvy modelers forced a term
into use that is technically incorrect. I think this happened for 2
reasons, the first being that "switch" was being misused to represent
"turnout" ("I bought a #8 switch from Walthers") and the second being that
the backlash against that misuse went too far and folks assumes that any use
of "switch" was incorrect ("Ooooh, if it is a turnout and not a switch, then
I had better say 'throw the turnout'"). Its always fun to watch the real
railroaders cringe when somebody does that <G> .

Regards
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
________________________________________
Steve says:
Now if we can only eradicate that equally annoying and also inaccurate
phrase "throwing" or "operating a turnout" while we're at it...








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


Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

Bruce Smith
 

Steve,

This is one instance where supposedly prototype savvy modelers forced a term into use that is technically incorrect. I think this happened for 2 reasons, the first being that "switch" was being misused to represent "turnout" ("I bought a #8 switch from Walthers") and the second being that the backlash against that misuse went too far and folks assumes that any use of "switch" was incorrect ("Ooooh, if it is a turnout and not a switch, then I had better say 'throw the turnout'"). Its always fun to watch the real railroaders cringe when somebody does that <G> .

Regards
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
________________________________________
Steve says:
Now if we can only eradicate that equally annoying and also inaccurate phrase "throwing" or "operating a turnout" while we're at it...


Re: Propane in the Steam Era?

Tom Birkett <tnbirke@...>
 

The coils could have been for a refrigerant, but I can't imagine such a
usage. Propane and other LPGs do self- refrigerate when going through a
pressure drop. This is part of the mechanism that allows an excess flow
valve to block off the flow when an angle valve is damaged or it leaks.

Adding steam or warm water to assist in unloading sounds good and they also
may have never been used. The properties we probably little understood under
operating conditions and some researcher may have said "you better have a
way to heat that product or you'll never get it unloaded."

Tom Birkett, Bartlesville, OK




--- In STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , "Tom
Birkett" <tnbirke@...> wrote:

The first "pressure cars" came to the Phillips Petroleum fleet in
1928.
Pressure meaning a safety valve set at 100 psi or more. These
first Phillips
cars (PSPX 10001-10003) were insulated and jacketed (ARA Class V,
current
designation DOT105J300) but the interesting thing is that they had
steam
coils which is very unusual.
*********************


Recent Activity:

.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmY2JlZ2lwBF9TAzk3Mz
U5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1NTQ3NTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTY5NzI1BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBH
N0aW1lAzEzMzU0MTcyODQ-?o=6> New Members 1

.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdWE1MHVqBF9TAzk3MzU5
NzE0BGdycElkAzI1NTQ3NTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTY5NzI1BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0
aW1lAzEzMzU0MTcyODQ-> New Photos 2


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMXYxbWZzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BG
dycElkAzI1NTQ3NTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTY5NzI1BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMT
MzNTQxNzI4NA--> Visit Your Group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcTRkM3ZvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1N
TQ3NTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTY5NzI1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzM1NDE3Mjg0>
Yahoo! Groups

Switch to:
<mailto:STMFC-traditional@...?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format
:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:STMFC-digest@...?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest>
Daily Digest .
<mailto:STMFC-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe .
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use

.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=2554753/grpspId=1705169725/msgId
=108784/stime=1335417284/nc1=3848627/nc2=4767086/nc3=4025321>


Re: Propane in the Steam Era?

Jim Betz
 

Hi guys,

So I went to my LHS and they told me that RP Cyc 7 is long out
of print ... any body have a copy they want to sell?
- Jim

________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Propane in the Steam Era?
Posted by: "Andrew Sperandeo" asperandeo@... asperandeo
Date: Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:42 am ((PDT))

See RP CYC Volume 7 on steam-era ACF Type 27 propane tank cars.
So long � Andy


Re: Propane in the Steam Era?

Nolan Hinshaw
 

On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:44 PM, olderail wrote:

--- In STMFC@..., "Tom Birkett" <tnbirke@...> wrote:

The first "pressure cars" came to the Phillips Petroleum fleet in 1928.
Pressure meaning a safety valve set at 100 psi or more. These first Phillips
cars (PSPX 10001-10003) were insulated and jacketed (ARA Class V, current
designation DOT105J300) but the interesting thing is that they had steam
coils which is very unusual.
*********************

Is it possible that these steam coils were used for a refrigerant?
They may not have been for steam; my experience with propane is that under conditions of rapid discharge a propane tank can freeze up, and to prevent that either immersing the tank in water (for small enough tanks) or running water through a coil in the tank (for larger tanks) is enough to prevent the freeze-up.
--
"Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!"
Wolfgang Pauli, perpetrator of the Pauli Exclusion Principle


Re: Propane in the Steam Era?

richard haave
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Tom Birkett" <tnbirke@...> wrote:

The first "pressure cars" came to the Phillips Petroleum fleet in 1928.
Pressure meaning a safety valve set at 100 psi or more. These first Phillips
cars (PSPX 10001-10003) were insulated and jacketed (ARA Class V, current
designation DOT105J300) but the interesting thing is that they had steam
coils which is very unusual.
*********************

Is it possible that these steam coils were used for a refrigerant?

Dick Haave




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


Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

midrly <midrly@...>
 

Richard--

Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

Most on this list know that plain bearings ride on top of a journal on a film of oil, and friction is not what a railway wants in a journal bearing.

Now if we can only eradicate that equally annoying and also inaccurate phrase "throwing" or "operating a turnout" while we're at it...

Steve Lucas.

--- 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: ANOTHER ROOFWALK QUESTION

Ed Hawkins
 

On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:10 PM, WILLIAM PARDIE wrote:

A number of years ago Tony Thompson did an excellent article in RMC on
building
a Western Pacific PS-1 boxcar. I learned from this article that the
WP PS-1 cars
used Morton roof walks. I am doing this caqr and I also have a
Branchline WP kit in
20600 series. The buid date is 8-47. Does anyone know what roofwalks
were used
on this series?
Bill,
WP 20551-20800 also used Morton running boards & brake steps. To
elaborate a little about these box cars, be aware that the doors used
on these cars was an earlier version YSD than what Branchline provided
in the kit. I'm not aware of a correct door in HO scale other than one
created in cast urethane by Jack Spencer, who offered a few "extras"
for sale at Naperville a number of years ago.

Southwest Scale Reproductions offers this style door but only for cars
with 6' door openings.

http://southwestscale.com/Youngstown-6-Ft-Wide-10-6-IH-6-6-5-Panel-
Door-FC-622.htm

The likely reason that Dan Hall of Southwest Scale didn't offer the
wider 7' door is because these WP cars (as far as I could determine)
were the only box cars with 7' openings having this type of door.

There's an article about various WP 40' box cars in the Spring 1990
issue of The Western Pacific Headlight. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


ANOTHER ROOFWALK QUESTION

WILLIAM PARDIE
 

A number of years ago Tony Thompson did an excellent article in RMC on building
a Western Pacific PS-1 boxcar. I learned from this article that the WP PS-1 cars
used Morton roof walks. I am doing this caqr and I also have a Branchline WP kit in
20600 series. The buid date is 8-47. Does anyone know what roofwalks were used
on this series?

Thanks in advance (TIA):

Bill Pardie


Re: Truck bearings: Solid vs. RB

Pierre <pierre.oliver@...>
 

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]