|
|
| Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings (693975) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by SilverFox on Tue Oct 14 00:01:29 2008, in response to Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by Train Dude on Sat Oct 11 18:43:36 2008. This is just a total, wild, uneducated stab from someone who knows absolutely nothing mechanical except a primitive knowledge of physics and a divine talent for bullshit, so please don't chew my head off. I am aware here of my limitations. Putting the journals and their associated weight inboard leads to better loading of the axle and less stress at the extreme ends. Although railroad axles are quite substantial single-piece structures, the more centrally loaded they are, the truer they can run, with less chance for flexing, vibration, or other disruption that can cause a domino effect in other malfunctions. It also means a smoother ride as shocks are less apt to be transmitted to the cabin. Less chance for distortion means the axle can be built lighter. Others have hinted at hollow tubes, or even thinner hollow tubes, being possible, and herein lies the weight savings. It worked for the M1/M3 series cars, I guess, because it seemed that the cars' axles weren't as loaded overall as they are with the M7s. It has been mentioned that the M7s are, in fact, heavier than the M1/3s, but I don't know if that is attributable in total to journal placement. The M1/3s could absorb a lot more shock in stressful maneuvers such as sharp curves and switches because of their light axle loading, leaving ample reserve for such stresses, while the M7s are more shock prone due to their weight and require the "sturdier" design of outboard journals. Still, more of the train's structure is involved in shock absorption as a result of the extra heft and rigid design. How'd I do? |
|
|
|