On Aug 27, 2005, at 9:04 AM, Montford Switzer wrote:
This has been quite a lengthy thread and this may have been coveredMont is, as usual, correct. Immediately following WW II, several railroads equipped freight cars with roller bearings for on-line service (e.g., the Union Pacific's Day Livestock Service stock cars, the C&O's unit train hoppers). But none of the North American railroads were willing to spend the extra money to equip cars in interchange service with roller bearings, since other RRs would then get much of the benefit without having to spend their own capital. As 100 ton nominal capacity freight cars began to appear in growing numbers in the late 1950s, however, it was found that solid bearing trucks would not perform reliably carrying that much weight, and once the application of roller bearing trucks to 100 ton cars became common practice, the resistance to putting them on cars of lower capacity rapidly diminished, especially as their elimination of hot journals came to be increasingly appreciated by both mechanical and operating departments. By the way, this has all been covered in published sources as well as in previous discussions on the STMFC list, so the recent deluge on the list of opinion and speculation masquerading as fact on this subject is really quite unwarranted, not to say tiresome for those of us who have been paying attention to these matters for a long time.
With regard to terminology, I will say yet again what Tony Thompson has already asserted on this subject, that "friction bearing" was a term used as a promotional ploy by the roller bearing manufacturers to imply that roller bearing were "non-friction bearings," which is, of course, nonsense. That it may have gained some currency in later years with railroad employees is beside the point. During the steam/transition era, which is our concern on this list, the terms used almost universally in the railroad engineering literature for conventional bearings were "solid" or "plain" bearings, as anyone can determine by spending a little time reading that literature (e.g., Car Builders' Cyclopedias and periodicals such as Railway Mechanical Engineer). That an exception to this practice was found in a single, rather dated, publication proves nothing to the contrary.
Those of us on this list who carry out serious prototype research generally prefer to use the terms that were common to the engineering literature where different from those used by the working stiffs who ran trains and maintained rolling stock, a preference which in no way reflects any lack of respect for the working stiffs but does reflect a desire for clarity and consistency. Others on the list may, of course, use any terminology they like, but should be aware that their choices may lead others to doubt their seriousness and their credibility.
To Richard Hendrickson,
Thanks for all the fine and inside info on this subject of roller-bearing trucks, just what I've been seeking for, as well as apparently others. However, I find it unusual for you to say;
"By the way, this has all been covered in published
sources as well as in previous discussions on the STMFC list, so the
recent deluge on the list of opinion and speculation masquerading as
fact on this subject is really quite UNWARRANTED, not to say TIRESOME
for those of us who have been paying attention to these matters for a
"Those of us on this list who carry out serious prototype research,...."
Oh, excuse me, only your "clan" does??
"Others on the list may, of course,
use any terminology they like, but should be aware that their choices
may lead others to doubt their seriousness and their credibility."
Isn't the STMFC list supposed to be a source for all of this type of knowledge, for those of us out here who aren't so privy to such "secret" information?
Perhaps if the STMFC would produce a FAQ page, like an encyclopedia, then many of these discussions would be unnecessary and we could refer to the FAQ's instead of each other.
Mike Brock,....Is this bordering on "Flaming" us ignorant-slobs out here?
Dave Nelson <muskoka@...>
Isn't the STMFC list supposed to be a source for all of this type ofYeah but Paul, for those of us who have been thru this issue many, many
times it *is* off-putting. You need to be aware that many here have been
doing freight cars on the internet since the early 1996. And of course
others are brand new. Are the old hands obligated to anwswer *every* n00b's
question, even those that have been dealt with many times before? In my
opinion, the answer is no.
BTW, it strikes me as rather offensive to suggest people here keep secrets.
Far more likely they're bored, busy, or just indifferent to answering. For
instance, I could have added a few thoughts in on the solid bearing
terminology question... by virtue of the fact that I have been fortuante
enough to purchase a number of cyclopedias and have taken the time to read
instead of just looking at the pictures. But I didn't. That's not keeping
secrets; it's not bothering ONE MORE TIME. Indeed, there are other more
interesting things to do.
Perhaps if the STMFC would produce a FAQ page, like an encyclopedia, thenPerhaps you could start one. Surely many will appreciate a comprehensive
work. In the meanwhile the best I can hope for is the continued PUBLISHING
and SHARING by those who are better informed than I... and by and large I
will be grateful to receive whatever they happen to share.
Mike Brock,....Is this bordering on "Flaming" us ignorant-slobs out here?I'm sure Mike will remind us all of the official policy.
--- In STMFC@..., "Dave Nelson" <muskoka@c...> wrote:
Are the old hands obligated to anwswer *every* n00b'sIn my
opinion, the answer is no.=======================
Is any one person obligated, no.
Is the list obligated, yes.
The basic purpose of the list is to share information. If someone
asks a question and those who know don't answer, then information
isn't being shared. I would be suprised if the same basic questions
didn't keep popping up. They do on every other list I have
I guess it depends on how you visualize the list as a
single "research project" where you cover each item in sequence and
never back over it or a "school" where a new class enrolls every year
and the same basics get covered year after year.
In the meanwhile the best I can hope for is the continued PUBLISHINGlarge I
will be grateful to receive whatever they happen to share.===========================
And that's exactly what all the "noob's" are thinking when they ask a
question. Evidently they will be disappointed.
Thanks Dave for your wise input.
As far as MY being a "noob", "newbie", "new-ninny" or whatever
the "intellectual-click" chooses to use, I've been in railroading
for 56 years, actually starting when I was 3. There just happened to
be a few questions that I'd never delved into after all these
wonderful years, and thought these "wonders of knowledge" would be
of some commeraderie-help.
Most groups always have somebody in them that trys to take over,
the "old-hats" who bloat their heads up about how "smart" they are.
It's all part of the arrogant-side of the human-mind. "a little
knowledge is dangerous.", is the old saying.
If you "wise-guys" are so bored with some of these "dumb" questions,
just don't answer,......at least not with some raw insult.
Either that, or I should find a better group which caters more
kindly to dolts!!
--- In STMFC@..., "dehusman" <dehusman@c...> wrote:
--- In STMFC@..., "Dave Nelson" <muskoka@c...> wrote:before?Are the old hands obligated to anwswer *every* n00b's
In myquestionsopinion, the answer is no.=======================
didn't keep popping up. They do on every other list I haveand
never back over it or a "school" where a new class enrolls everyyear
and the same basics get covered year after year.PUBLISHING
andand SHARING by those who are better informed than I... and by
large Iask awill be grateful to receive whatever they happen to share.===========================
question. Evidently they will be disappointed.