Solid Bearing vs Friction bearings

[Dr EMD]

I noted many publication uses (incorrectly) the term "friction" bearings when they talk about the older cotton waste soaked in oil journal boxes. This is to differentiate from the roller bearing journal boxes.

The term "solid" is much suited for these older type of bearings than the term "friction".

This maybe at one time the term "anti-friction" was used to describe roller bearing journals.

Hopefully you don't start calling locomotive cab a "cockpit", or talk about cargo trains.

Just a though.   

[Jim Banner]

Interesting thought.  But I see that the US Patent Office still uses the term "friction bearing" to describe what we might consider a lubricated bushing or solid bearing.  Perhaps the best definition comes from the University of Windsor Dept. of Engineering and viewable at this site:
http://staff.washington.edu/ryanlee/Engine/UofWindsorManual/Bearings.htm

On steam locomotives, both rotary and linear friction bearings are often referred to as "brasses," even if the working surface is babbit.  For example, "I hear her knocking.  Nearly time to adjust the brasses."

[Redtail67]

Friction Bearing is how they were referred to. You are right we had to "rebrass" them alot when I first hired out. Hot Boxes were common and we were very glad that the railroads went full tilt into roller bearings.

However, many men were fired account the roller bearing did not give the warning the older journal boxes did. First smoe the fire till the oil all burned out. Then the axel started being cut and very shortly thereafter derailment.

The roller bearings were way different, if you were a lucky man, you looking right at it at thye right time. All that happened was a puff of smoke and at night some sparks were seen. The ATSF always told us at 50 to 70MPH you had about 5 minutes from the puff of smoke to stop or end up in the ditch.

From my personal knowledge that was just about it 5 minutes.

The ATSF fired the crew members closest to it and the ones on that side. In other words the engineer was responsible for any on his side as far as halfway back.

The fireman and or head brake man were responsible for both sides halfway back.

The rear brakeman and conductor for boths side half way to the head end.

The Engineer and or Conductor and sometimes others in the crew would escape being dismissed or disciplined if they were occupied with other required duties such as slowing or stopping to take siding. Copying train orders etc..

I onced turned over 45 loaded grain cars threw them all over interstate 45 burned a journal 56 back on the firemans side they fired all crew members but me as I was taking signals to take siding and was busy as heck.

If no real damage was done maybe just dropped the journal but all cars were upright they would just issue demerits.

They did not care if you could see it or not you still got it.

Redtail67

[JerryB]

<snip>
The term "solid" is much suited for these older type of bearings than the term "friction".<snip>

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I work as a principal technologist (VP Engineering, Chief Technical Officer, etc.) specializing in electromechanical systems design and engineering. I both manage the designs and directly supervise engineering teams involved in making stuff that works.

The term friction bearing is clearly understood by all the folks I work with. We frequently have meetings where someone will say something along the line of ". . . use a friction bearing here . . .", thus differentiating from other types of bearings such roller, ball, air, etc. This is accepted engineering terminology. Trying to change it would certainly cause confusion where there is currently none.

In our world, there is no such thing as a "solid bearing", unless it is a friction bearing that has seized, and thus become "solid!"

Happy RRing,

Jerry

[Yampa Bob]

In our ever changing technology, so also is terminology changing.  As a Union Pacific stockholder, I have the privilege to attend annual meetings and learn all the latest "buzz words".

While we still use the term "freight" as an overall category of income, it is broken down into 6 categories: Intermodal, agriculture, chemical, industrial, energy and automobiles. Likewise we separate the cars into categories such as tankers, flats, hoppers, gondolas, wells, etc.

I always thought, by land it is freight, by sea it is cargo. But with increasing intermodal there is a blending of freight and cargo terms.  Dock workers load "the cargo" onto a ship, or a factory might unload the containered "cargo".

Anything that has to be handled by manpower might be called freight. If in containers such as intermodal, the contents are often referred to as "the cargo".

Again, it is a matter of perspective and context.  Many conveyances have "cockpits" but I would never associate the name to a locomotive "cab".  However, with the latest isolated and computerized cabs, I wouldn't be surprised if they someday called them cockpits. 

Note the page title and picture names on this site.

http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/cargo-train.html  

"A rose, by any other name, is still a rose"

[Jim Banner]

Interesting site, Bob, but why would anyone want to pay $250 for a "Royalty Free" image of a signal mast (for example)?  Why not just buy a digital camera, drive over to the closest tracks, take your own photo, and then throw the camera away?  At least you would have the photo the way YOU want it.  And if cost is a consideration, you could return or sell the camera or maybe even keep it for next time.  Interesting website, but the concept is beyond me. 

[Conrail Quality]

It seems to geared towards newspapers, magazines, and the like. For instance, check out the photo in this New York Times article. Clearly a stock photo, like the ones on that site (although this particular one came from the AP, who got it from who knows where).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/business/10sorkin.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=CSX&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Timothy

[Yampa Bob]

I wasn't trying to sell the pictures, I wanted you to note the page title and the names of the pictures..."cargo,etc"....in response to Dr EMD's comment.

[Jim Banner]

I wasn't trying to sell the pictures, I wanted you to note the page title and the names of the pictures...

No problem, Bob.  After reading the title and the names of the photos, I explored the site a little further and was intrigued.  Conrail Quality's explanation make sense.

[Yampa Bob]

I agree about the prices, I certainly wouldn't pay that.  But there are some nice aerial shots and others I could never hope to see in person.

I have collected thousands of pictures from the net, some are really nice.  I just received 2 new Epson printers, one is just a printer with a parallel port, and an all-in-one.  I'm anxious to print out some of the pictures for framing.

[terry2foot]

Perhaps the best definition comes from the University of Windsor Dept. of Engineering and viewable at this site:
http://staff.washington.edu/ryanlee/Engine/UofWindsorManual/Bearings.htm

Take care, whilst this document contains useful information it also contains fundamental mistakes, such as "bronze is an alloy of copper and zinc", and over simplifies others, note that most bearings of any sort rely on an oil film to separate components and ultimately reduce friction and wear.

Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc as major constituents, bronze is an alloy of copper and tin as major constituents. 

Anti-friction is the historic generic name for what are now commonly called rolling element bearings, to distinguish them from what were then called friction bearings.


Terry2foot 

[Jim Banner]

Good catch, Terry.  I agree about brass being mostly copper and zinc with other elements added, but bronze is another kettle of fish.  Some bronzes contain more zinc than tin and others contain little or no tin at all.  Red bronze, aluminum bronze and salt water bronze come to mind as examples.  I suspect a lot of this is historical as there doesn't seem to be any clear distinction between brasses and bronzes on a metallurgical basis.  Just how much slight changes in the composition affect the properties of the final material are well illustrated by the history of the Liberty Bell.

[terry2foot]

I agree about brass being mostly copper and zinc with other elements added, but bronze is another kettle of fish.

Jim,

you actually have the answer which is that bronze without any qualification is a copper based alloy with a deliberate addition of tin.

Any other sort of bronze normally has additional words added such as phospor bronze, aluminium bronze, manganese bronze, silicon bronze, aluminium nickel silicon bronze which specify the addition(s) (not necessarily metals) which give that bronze its particular characteristics and properties. And these other bronzes need not necessarily contain tin. 

My understanding is that the reason the Liberty Bell cracked was more to do with the inner mould characteristics than the material composition,


Terry2foot