|
|
| Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings (694192) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 14 21:03:28 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by SilverFox on Tue Oct 14 00:01:29 2008. I didn't know that the M-7s were significantly heavier than the M-3s which I believe were much heavier than the M-1s, In reality, I don't totally accept your idea about the axle loading being a factor. I'm not a structural/mechanical engineer but as I visualize it, the significant factor is that the carbody loads on the bolster which then transmits the load to the journals. That load is transmitted via the axle to the wheels so the significant factor would seem to be the distance between the bearing and the wheel. If the inboard bearing is equi-distant from the wheel as is the outboard bearing, then I can't visualize that there'd be any difference in loading. I do sence that the outboard bearing would provide more stability on rough track but that's just a feeling that I can't defend scientifically. Again, I claim no expertise in this field.I've already expressed my preference for the outboard bearing but that's only based on my operational needs and preferences. My sole purpose was to see if I could get some insight into why the LIRR/MNRR made the switch, if in fact, it was their decision or if it was the design that the builder presented - going unchallanged. Thanks for the food for thought, though. |
|
|
|