|
|
| Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings (693105) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (693940) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Oct 13 21:43:11 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by Jeff H. on Mon Oct 13 02:14:12 2008. ah. thanks for clarifying. |
|
|
| (693945) | |
Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Oct 13 22:03:13 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion Train Dude not Knowing Vocabulary., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Oct 13 20:15:21 2008. Of course since everyone else has seen fit to discuss this subject maturely, it was inevitable that you, the leading asshole on this site, would screw the pooch once again. For the record, we, those of us in the rail industry, refer to the various types of bearings in this application as axle journal bearings. Of course, everyone but you understood this. Then again, what could I expect from an asshole who so quickly grasped the concept of "fratostatic yaw damping". So congratulations on doing nothing but disrupting a serious discussion to try to sooth your shattered ego.But if you'll permit me one other observation: It would seem from this and many other posts you've made on the subject, you've given much time and study the issue of anal sex and the insertion of objects including fruit into the anus. This is a good thing but I'm sure you already know that anal sex can lead to pregnancy. For everyone else, let me explain. If, during anal sex, the man reaches orgasm within his partner and then withdraws his erect penis, there is a natural tendency for him to want to re-insert it into his partner's vagina. If there is enough ejaculate remaining on the penis when it is re-inserted, pregnancy can occur. I suspect this might explain how you were conceived and would also explain why you now have shit for brains. |
|
|
| (693946) | |
Re: Technical Discussion Train Dude not Knowing Vocabulary. |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Oct 13 22:04:14 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion Train Dude not Knowing Vocabulary., posted by Newkirk Images on Mon Oct 13 20:31:41 2008. Nah, why use gun powder when roach powder will do? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (693947) | |
Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ) |
|
|
Posted by Ken S. on Mon Oct 13 22:20:33 2008, in response to Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ), posted by Train Dude on Mon Oct 13 22:03:13 2008. :correct answer bell:"You better ring the bell. You got one right for a change." |
|
|
| (693948) | |
Re: Technical Discussion Train Dude not Knowing Vocabulary. |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Oct 13 22:24:40 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion Train Dude not Knowing Vocabulary., posted by Train Dude on Mon Oct 13 22:04:14 2008. ROTFLMAO! |
|
|
| (693949) | |
Re: Technical Discussion Train Dude not Knowing Vocabulary. |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Oct 13 22:27:41 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion Train Dude not Knowing Vocabulary., posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Oct 13 18:05:08 2008. I have asked that question here before with no responsesDon't say that people here did not warn you about the consequences of becoming the board's clown. When you ask a legit question no-one sees it because of all the other stuff you write. |
|
|
| (693950) | |
Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ) |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Oct 13 22:36:45 2008, in response to Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ), posted by Train Dude on Mon Oct 13 22:03:13 2008. Thank you for repeating what Jeff H said.And thank you again for repeating your favorite anal sex fantasy about you and a republican senator. |
|
|
| (693951) | |
Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ) |
|
|
Posted by Ken S. on Mon Oct 13 22:38:36 2008, in response to Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Oct 13 22:36:45 2008. :wrong answer buzzer: |
|
|
| (693953) | |
Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Oct 13 22:41:09 2008, in response to Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ), posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Oct 13 22:36:45 2008. Not sure if you had your eyes covered, your ears covered or your mouth covered when he posted that. You know the 3 chimps - see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil? Not exactly sure which one you are. |
|
|
| (693965) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by 5119 on Mon Oct 13 23:32:37 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Oct 11 20:33:26 2008. B-IV's are 1982-83 vintage |
|
|
| (693974) | |
Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ) |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Mon Oct 13 23:59:32 2008, in response to Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ), posted by Train Dude on Mon Oct 13 22:03:13 2008. Do you really think JSQ-K wil understand what you said? |
|
|
| (693975) | |
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? |
|
|
| (693982) | |
Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ) |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Tue Oct 14 00:12:26 2008, in response to Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ), posted by Train Dude on Mon Oct 13 22:03:13 2008. ' I suspect this might explain how you were conceived and would also explain why you now have shit for brains.'sounds like this is YOUR area of expertise..... |
|
|
| (693983) | |
Re: Technical Discussion Train Dude not Knowing Vocabulary. |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Oct 14 00:12:28 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion Train Dude not Knowing Vocabulary., posted by Train Dude on Mon Oct 13 22:04:14 2008. Nah, use a flame thrower, Dr. No "dragon" style. |
|
|
| (693984) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Oct 14 00:16:06 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by Train Dude on Sun Oct 12 22:02:51 2008. Since it was 'inconclusive'..what are the chances that you guys may give inboard truck another shot? |
|
|
| (693987) | |
Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ) |
|
|
Posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Tue Oct 14 00:30:44 2008, in response to Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ), posted by Train Dude on Mon Oct 13 22:03:13 2008. What in the Wacky Wild World Of Sports are YOU all talking about?Please keep the discussions on topic! |
|
|
| (694003) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Oct 14 03:31:28 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by 5119 on Mon Oct 13 23:32:37 2008. Thanks |
|
|
| (694011) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by irt1958 on Tue Oct 14 05:43:28 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Oct 13 19:07:37 2008. lol Railroaders should've listened to John Wesley Hyatt, back in 1901, the Lo Vs and others would still be around. |
|
|
| (694018) | |
Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ) |
|
|
Posted by aem7ac on Tue Oct 14 07:28:43 2008, in response to Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ), posted by Train Dude on Mon Oct 13 22:03:13 2008. rofl |
|
|
| (694025) | |
Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Oct 14 08:07:30 2008, in response to Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ), posted by Ken S. on Mon Oct 13 22:38:36 2008. BUZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| (694033) | |
Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ) |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Tue Oct 14 08:27:40 2008, in response to Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ), posted by Train Dude on Mon Oct 13 22:41:09 2008. He's some kind of mmutant six-handed chimp, and those hands cover all the places one would use to gain knowledge. |
|
|
| (694038) | |
Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ) |
|
|
Posted by Ken S. on Tue Oct 14 08:38:09 2008, in response to Re: Explanation to Jerk-Off Square K-Car (was: Technical Discussion ), posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Oct 14 08:07:30 2008. "Richard, be nice." |
|
|
| (694055) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 14 09:44:37 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by irt1958 on Tue Oct 14 05:43:28 2008. I am sure they can easily be rigged with roller bearings, though. |
|
|
| (694061) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Oct 14 10:10:46 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 14 09:44:37 2008. And the bearings would use banana puree in place of oil. |
|
|
| (694069) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Oct 14 11:14:25 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by nasadowsk on Sat Oct 11 21:13:32 2008. Right angle drive was very popular in Japan where most lines are 3'6" gauge in the fifties. Once powerful motors became small enough to fit, almost every company went to traditional parallel drive. Sagami Railway of Yokohama was the only one to order right angle drive cars up to 2001. It was also the only company that kept using PIII type outside disk brakes into the nineties.Also all of the Paris Métro from MP55 up to MP89 are right angle drive. (I don't know about MF88 and MF2000) |
|
|
| (694077) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Oct 14 11:41:28 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Mon Oct 13 18:54:45 2008. "Also, is there any structural benefit of hollow axles other than their being lighter?"You can fill them with banana puree and shredded coconut. |
|
|
| (694098) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Oct 14 13:31:58 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Oct 14 11:41:28 2008. Or Stovetop stuffing.:) |
|
|
| (694161) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by SilverFox on Tue Oct 14 19:03:59 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by SilverFox on Tue Oct 14 00:01:29 2008. ::bump:: Here I am being serious, and my attempt to answer TD's question goes begging. |
|
|
| (694164) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 14 19:09:22 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by SilverFox on Tue Oct 14 19:03:59 2008. Just to let ya know, the rest of us are wondering what his answer to your comments would be as well ... |
|
|
| (694168) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by SilverFox on Tue Oct 14 19:22:25 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 14 19:09:22 2008. Does it hold some water? I tried to analyze the situation strictly from an engineering standpoint. I paralleled the Manhattan Bridge flaw with the weight outboard the span to excessive torsion in the axles caused by its supports at the extreme ends instead of nearer the centerline. I also correlated the simpler, lighter, and lighter-loaded design to better ease in damping any stresses put to it found in normal service, causing the cycle to feed upon itself: Lighter loads lead to less loading of stressed components leads to a requirement for lighter components, which leads to lighter loads . . . I may not have said it as elegantly as I do my jokes, but I got it out. |
|
|
| (694174) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 14 19:52:34 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by SilverFox on Tue Oct 14 19:22:25 2008. Sounds logical to me, but I don't know for sure. I'll avoid the "does it hold water" gag from "My Cousin Vinny" ... but it's something only the Dude or Uncle Jeff and a handful of others can answer with "authority." |
|
|
| (694179) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 14 20:12:46 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by SilverFox on Tue Oct 14 19:22:25 2008. Umm, there is a flaw in your view. You say that it is better to load the axle closer to the center line...that is kind of flawed, since if you literally laoded the axle at the center, that would put the maximum amunt of torque on it. The most IDEAL place to put the load(from the axle's perspective) is right OVER the wheel itself, so that there will be NO torque upon the axle.Now from lets say you hit a bump on one side of the track on an outboard truck, since the truck is suspended further away from the pivot point, there will be more motion induced on the truck, potentially causing more strain, but suspension can nullify this. An inboard truck will have less pivotal motion since it is suspended closer to the pivot point. Also, in the same situation, an inboard truck will have both bearings raised up if one wheel is raised, while on an ouboard truck, one bearing will go down, while the other goes up, due to the position of the bearings in respect to the wheels, or "pivot/force points." I am also thinking that hollow axles are possible on outboard trucks as well. The bending force, or torque on the axle is caused by the distance from the bearing to the wheel, not whether it is inside, or outside. Maybe inboard trucks allow for the bearings to be closer to the wheel, in which case, they will reduce the bending force on the axle. And the manhattan bridge view of yours is flawed as well. The reason it has issues is that it was initially poorly built. If it were suspended in the center, it would still twist. Like with the axles, the key is to have support over the place of maximum load. or, have the maximum load in between the suspension points, in the case of the bridge. That is why the williamsburg bridge has no issues with twisting; since the trains are in the middle, insted of on the extreme outsides. Plus, the bridge wasn't rigid enough in the first place. But anyways, the torque is still forced upon the manny-b when trains pass over it. Same goes for the Ben franklin bridge, except it seems to have a more rigid design, with less rail traffic, and lighter trains in the first place. Another think to note is that the ben franklin bridge has two cables, instead of four. Maybe those two cables are heavier duty ones than the manny-b's four. |
|
|
| (694192) | |
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. |
|
|
| (694193) | |
Re: Was there any physics in that post? was Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Oct 14 21:04:17 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 14 20:12:46 2008. See subject. |
|
|
| (694196) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by irt1958 on Tue Oct 14 21:12:18 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 14 09:44:37 2008. Too late, they're gone. |
|
|
| (694198) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 14 21:22:56 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 14 21:03:28 2008. I read that the M7s are about 60 tons!!! M1s were about 47 tons, while M3s were 55 tons, I think, though I am unsure about the M1/3 weights, that is how I recall them. I just read about the M7 weight, so that is good info there. |
|
|
| (694200) | |
Re: Was there any physics in that post? was Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 14 21:25:13 2008, in response to Re: Was there any physics in that post? was Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Oct 14 21:04:17 2008. Yes, there was. In fact, Train Dude brought up some stuff that I did as well. |
|
|
| (694204) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Oct 14 21:44:16 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 14 21:03:28 2008. Only one reason why LIRR/MNCR went with outboard bearing trucks was the support structure for the disk brakes was simply not there, on inboard bearing trucks with their smaller truck frame, simply because the design incorporated the tread brakes as well.The disks are part of the wheel, and not part of inner axle, that space is occupied by AC traction motor and gearbox. |
|
|
| (694210) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Oct 14 21:59:37 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Oct 14 21:44:16 2008. Some R32s had disk brakes on the outside, with inboard bearings. Would make for good cooling. |
|
|
| (694239) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Oct 15 00:22:58 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Oct 14 21:44:16 2008. That makes as much sense as any other explanation I've read |
|
|
| (694243) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Wed Oct 15 00:33:35 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by irt1958 on Tue Oct 14 21:12:18 2008. Didn't they attempt to go with rollers under some of the R9s and why did they not do the whole fleet? |
|
|
| (694246) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by SilverFox on Wed Oct 15 00:53:38 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 14 21:03:28 2008. Then I misread the intent of your question. I thought you were putting out a challenge to see what kind of answers you got to a question you knew the answer to and just wanted to see how we visualized the problem presented. I hope I didn't spin you around in circles, heh. |
|
|
| (694253) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Oct 15 01:17:53 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by SilverFox on Wed Oct 15 00:53:38 2008. Not at all. The intent of the question was as stated. |
|
|
| (694255) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Oct 15 01:55:43 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Oct 14 21:44:16 2008. Why do the M7s need disk brakes? Weren't thread brakes enough? |
|
|
| (694265) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by irt1958 on Wed Oct 15 06:39:21 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by BLE-NIMX on Wed Oct 15 00:33:35 2008. I don't know, but I seriously doubt that. Early in the 20th century, rollers were used in huge quantities on gas powered touring autos, not super heavy railstock. As for the arnines, the city was in no mood for expensive experimenting with its new subway cars, and wanted to go with tried and true mech-tech to establish themselves. There was an awful lot of stupid politics, fear, and penny pinching at work then.Maybe the BMT's Zephyr had roller, ie: frictionless bearings, I couldn't notice any JB lids on any of the photos I've seen. The BMT's "oddcars" seems the best candidates for pre war NYC based subway cars, with rollers, if any existed. |
|
|
| (694278) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Oct 15 08:33:20 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Oct 15 01:55:43 2008. No they wanted to spread the heat load and get better deceleration.we all know what results were , kdunk , kdunk, kdunk etc. Funny part is the M-8's are about 30 000 lbs heavier with no disk brakes planned only thread brakes. |
|
|
| (694294) | |
Re: Broad Street Subway Cars |
|
|
Posted by Widecab5 on Wed Oct 15 10:25:39 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Oct 11 20:33:26 2008. The B-IVs were delivered between late 1981 and mid 1983.Their closest functional cousin is the No. 12 cars used on Boston's Orange Line and the No. 4 cars now being replaced on the Blue Line. The B-IV braking package was virtually duplicated on the R-62. Regards, George Chiasson Jr. (Widecab5@aol.com) |
|
|
| (694479) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Thu Oct 16 00:18:44 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by irt1958 on Wed Oct 15 06:39:21 2008. I'm pretty sure the MS cars had roller bearings, as did the lastfew of the D units. BMT was ahead of the game. I'm also pretty sure that roller bearing journals were tried on some R-9 cars, but perhaps that was just a proposition that was not implemented. I know for a fact that the R9s which survived into the mid-to-late 1970s did get ball and roller bearings for their traction motors to replace the original babbitted bronze friction bearings with oil-soaked waste packing. |
|
|
| (694486) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Oct 16 00:51:03 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by Jeff H. on Thu Oct 16 00:18:44 2008. I would have loved to see that myself. One of the PITA features of arnine put-ins was the "woolies check" and having to lift each cup to make sure someone stuffed a sock in it, and that it was still wet and there. :(Offside wasn't so bad, but having to reach over the protection boards while your arm hairs stood was a bit ... ummm ... "wake up" ... if today's "T/O's" had any idea of what motorpeople did, schoolcar would be graduating single digits for motors these days. Heh. |
|
|
| (694542) | |
Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Oct 16 07:57:16 2008, in response to Re: Technical Discussion About Axle Journal Bearings, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Oct 16 00:51:03 2008. Hey Kev, did you check 1689's journals six years ago? I can't recall if you did or not. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
