dwp,

When Ferodo brakeblocks were first introduced in NSW, *on disc wheels*, it was
said that the Ferrodo block reflected all the heat back into the wheel (unable
to conduct any of it 'away from the wheel').

At the time, we had some ferociously swift, single deck interurban (circa 70
mile run, max, at the time) cars, built on the Budd license (circa 1955/6?), by
Com-Eng, Granville, Syd.

'Weak field', on these carsets, did exactly wot it did on the Chicago North
Shore Line, to the Electroliners, and these babies could F--L--Y...!!!!

Needless to say, brakes were worked hard, and fairly quickly after the
introduction of Ferodo brakeblocks to these, 'spalling' was noticed on the
rims/treads...meaning bits/chunks (3/8" radial depth?) were being thrown
centrifigally away from the body of the disc wheel, leaving horrendous craters
in the running face.

Not sure wot woz done? The carsets carried on quite well for about another 20
years, till the introduction of newer, double-deck electric interurbans (also
swift, but not *quite* so devastatingly).

Also had a batch of Syd suburban carsets, done by Tullochs, Rhodes, Syd, in
1955, with weak field. Same result....galvanic, ranging to terrifying!

Cheers,
OP

--- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, davep@... wrote:
>
> ...on the robustness against derail of rail equipment...
>
> Recent event 'here' (Boston, MA, USA, news link on request).
> Third rail 'subway' EMUs.  (Some surface trackage.)
>
> Set derailed leaving 'west end' (Names are geographical fiction,
> for those not familiar with area...).  Low speed, no one hurt.
> Examination showed:
>   One wheel had shed a 'rim portion'. (1)
>   Said shedding had been 15ish mi previous, a 'South End.'
>   Said Wheel WORKING TRAILING, as part of a 6 (?) car set,
>   the 15ish miles had stayed on the rail...
>   When the set reversed, defective wheel (sans 'rim', etc) (1)
>   had almost immediately derailed.  (The reverse move involved
>   pointwork yaddah...)
>
> (1)
>   Some, i think will know this, some not:
>   What LOOKS Like one piece of steel, on modern rail wheels,
>   and IS in fact 'one piece', has a subtlety.  The
>   manufacturing involves a careful cooling/quenching of
>   rim (ish) (treadish/flangish) area, resulting in a DIFFERENT
>   microstucture, effectively a tread/rim WITH NET compressive
>   force on the 'rest' of the wheel.  This is dandy for wear,
>   sounder than separate rim, BUT IF OVERHEATED BY DRAGGING
>   BRAKE, the careful temper/quench is undone, and 'things come
>   apart'.
>
>  Or so i understand it.  Professional Rail Paper on this around
>  somewhere....
>
> best
>  dwp
>

Ronaldo (re T.E. Lawrence, and his alleged interferences with HM's Railways &
Tramways),

Yes....that should do the job!

Prefeerably about 1/4 mile before a long adverse gradient?

Cheers,
Oz Pete

--- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, "Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI" <renaud@...> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 31 December 2009, my mailbox was graced by a missive
>  from "Herbert" <herbgarratt@...> who wrote:
>
> >  by interfering with HM's (and others') Colonial permanent ways (the
> > lengths of whose rails he shortened...adequately....in the middle of the
> > run)!
>
> Shortening takes too long; you remove one fishplate, if possible on the
> outside rail on a curve; pull out the outside dogspikes on seveal sleepers;
> push rail outward, putting back one dogspike in former hole to hold rail in
> new position.
>
> For best effect, do this on an embankment.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ron.
> --
>                   Self-government requires self-discipline.
>                                              -- Paul Harvey
>
>                    -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --
>

Anybody see a boiler in those pictures?

Less engineering genius than tinkerer. Cobbled together recycled stuff with
a oversized breadbox foir a body.

Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Drake" <tuckerfan@...>
To: <steam_tech@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2010 10:11 PM
Subject: [steam_tech] Sorta OT: Steam Powered Trike on eBay!


> Its a homebuilt job and the seller's not certain if it runs or not.
> Powered by wood or coal.  Worth a look, if nothing else.
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Steam-Powered-3-wheel-motorcycle-car-custom-built\
_W0QQitemZ250556544580QQcmdZViewItemQQptZOther_Vehicles_Everything_Else?hash=ite\
m3a56557644#ht_500wt_976
>
>
> --
> http://tuckerfan.googlepages.com/toc.html
> "Breakthroughs require confidence in nonsense." Burt Rutan.
> http://building.athena.googlepages.com/bapage1.html
> http://machinecastmonthly.com/
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Its a homebuilt job and the seller's not certain if it runs or not.
Powered by wood or coal.  Worth a look, if nothing else.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Steam-Powered-3-wheel-motorcycle-car-custom-built\
_W0QQitemZ250556544580QQcmdZViewItemQQptZOther_Vehicles_Everything_Else?hash=ite\
m3a56557644#ht_500wt_976


--
http://tuckerfan.googlepages.com/toc.html
"Breakthroughs require confidence in nonsense." Burt Rutan.
http://building.athena.googlepages.com/bapage1.html
http://machinecastmonthly.com/

On Friday 01 January 2010, my mailbox was graced by a missive
  from "Robert M. Ellsworth" <wizlish1@...> who wrote:

> Ron, this was rather conclusively discredited as a means of actually  
> *derailing* trains by actual U.S.Army testing (in the Fifties as part  
> of training for demolitions operations).

Yet I heard from people who had actually been practicing that dark art in the
Resistance in WW II that this was _the_ method of choice to get German
troop/supplies trains off the track.

And, given the number of trains they did get off the rails, they must have
known what they were talking about.

So I recon the jury is still out on this one.

Happy New year,

Ron.
--
              Les vieux donnent de bons conseils pour se consoler
                 de ne plus pouvoir donner le mauvais exemple.
                                              -- La Rochefoucauld

                    -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --

Robert- very interesting read.

It does make you wonder- if wheel durability is a problem now with ~70,000 lb
maximum axle loads, what kind of problems did Lima and the C&O run into with the
tires on Alleghenys with 83,000 lb+ axle loads plus the additional problem of
stress from providing traction.

I can imagine tires are somewhat easier to produce to the desired constraints
since a tire can be given the optimum material composition for the tread/flange
requirements, while wheel steel has to provide adequate strength and fatigue
resistance not only for the tread surface and flange, but the wheel disk and hub
with the very high stresses from the press fit on the axle.

I also wonder if perhaps separate disk brakes on axles (as used on some railroad
passenger cars) might be justified given the detrimental thermal effects
mentioned regarding brake shoes on the wheel tread.

Happy New Year,
Hugh



--- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, "Robert M. Ellsworth" <wizlish1@...> wrote:
>
> For those interested (perhaps very few!) here is a synopsis of sorts
> concerning modern wheel steels and treatment, taken from a patent
> disclosure (assigned to TTCI).
>
> (CAUTION: this is a fairly long snip, and may take time both to save
> and to read)
>
> Original is at:  http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090051182

Hi All,

My lil' feature about last July's TrainFestival (a.k.a. SteamFest) 2009
in Owasso, Michigan: TrainFestival 2009
<http://www.modelgeek.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=inde\
x&req=viewarticle&artid=2899>

Enjoy,

Fred




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For those interested (perhaps very few!) here is a synopsis of sorts
concerning modern wheel steels and treatment, taken from a patent
disclosure (assigned to TTCI).

(CAUTION: this is a fairly long snip, and may take time both to save
and to read)

Original is at:  http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090051182


Re: Thermo Aspects of Thermo-Mechanical Deterioration

[0005]Steel railroad wheels eventually wear out as a result of normal
usage. Such wheels are however often prematurely forced from service
as a result of various forms of thermo-mechanical deterioration. A
great deal of the thermo aspect of thermo-mechanical deterioration
results from metallurgical transformation of a railroad wheel's tread/
flange steel from its original, relatively tough, pearlitic structure
to more brittle structures such as austenite, bainite and/or
martensite--with attendant loss of the austenite/bainite/martensite
materials through spalling. Again, thermo deterioration is caused by
the heat generated by friction when a train's wheels skid during
braking operations. That is to say that brittle steel materials are
produced when such frictional heat is sufficient to raise tread/
flange temperatures to austenite that is then transformed to bainite,
but in most cases martensite. These hot spots generally range from
about the size of a U.S. ten cent piece to about the size of a U.S.
twenty five cent piece. This heating can occur in time periods as
short as one second; indeed it can occur in time periods of less than
one thousandth of a second. Thereafter, because the rest of the
railway wheel serves as a heat sink, these very high hot spot
temperatures are quickly lowered. Thus, in skid producing braking
situations, local areas of the tread and/or flange are transformed to
austenite, bainite and/or martensite as their steel material rapidly
heats--and then rapidly cools.

[0006]Those skilled in this art also will appreciate that a
martensite transformation progresses only while the steel is cooling
(that is to say that more and more discrete volumes of a parent
austenite solid solution transform as the steel cools). Martensite
transformations can be prevented if the cooling process is
interrupted at a temperature above the so-called "Start Martensite."
Moreover, the amount of martensite formed per degree of decrease in
temperature is not a constant (i.e., the number of martensite
crystalline units produced at first is small, but increases rapidly
as the temperature continues to decrease). In any case, the resulting
brittle martensite material then tends to crack and fall away from
the wheel.

Re: Mechanical Aspects of Thermo-Mechanical Deterioration

[0007]The mechanical aspects of thermal-mechanical deterioration is
often referred to as "rolling contact fatigue." Again, it produces
the undesired form of steel material loss known as "shelling." Here,
the rolling action of a steel wheel produces cyclical mechanical
stresses that--in their own right--can contribute to a railway
wheel's deterioration. That is to say that rolling contact fatigue
can occur even if the tread steel does not experience metallographic
changing temperatures. Rolling contact fatigue is generally caused by
diminished shear fatigue strength of the wheel's tread surface steel.
This form of fatigue is usually considered in conjunction with the
level of subsurface shear stress being applied to a wheel, especially
in the region just below the tread's rail contact surface. In any
case, rolling contact fatigue is related to both the strength of the
wheel tread surface and to the load applied to it. And, as previously
noted, the strength of the wheel tread surface steel is, in turn,
related to its hardness.

[0008]Freight car wheels are often called upon to carry out
especially severe duties. For example freight car wheels are
frequently subjected to local contact pressures in excess of 160,000
p.s.i. These relatively greater loads lead directly to higher levels
of rolling contact fatigue. Such wheels must therefore be made from
relatively hard steels in order to impart acceptable wear life
characteristics under such loads. The use of hard steels
notwithstanding, railroads are experiencing an increasing incidence
of shelling type defects in freight car wheels as a result of the
greater loads they are currently being called upon to carry. It
should also be appreciated that these greater wheel loads are
produced by driving forces as well as by normal loads. Driving forces
tend to cause cracks in a wheel's flange regions while normal loads
tend to cause shelling of the tread.

[0009]Freight car wheels also must function as brake drums.
Consequently, even during normal braking operations, they must act as
heat sinks to dissipate the energy created by such braking
operations. When train brakes are applied the frictional heating
between a wheel and its shoe can easily produce tread temperatures of
over 1000° F. If brake heating raises to substantially higher levels,
the stresses produced can exceed the yield strength of the wheel's
steel. Moreover, when brake heated wheels again cool, residual
tensile stresses may remain therein and subsequently serve to open
any surface cracks that may be present. It is therefore not
surprising that the phenomenon of shelling due to rolling contact
fatigue is much more pronounced in heavily loaded freight car wheels
that travel over long and steep grades, e.g., in mountainous regions,
where a train's brakes are much more heavily employed.

Re: Intimate Relationships Between Thermo and Mechanical Deterioration

[0010]Next, it should be specifically noted that rolling contact
fatigue often occurs in intimate conjunction with the thermo aspects
of thermo-mechanical deterioration. For example, elevated
temperatures in a wheel steel serve to reduce its ability to resist
mechanical loading owing to the steel's diminished mechanical
strength above certain temperatures. Moreover, the longer a wheel
steel experiences elevated temperatures and high levels, the greater
the degree of shelling that will result from this time related
circumstance. Thus, in formulating steels resistant to wear, thermo
deterioration and/or mechanical deterioration, one must bear in mind
that these phenomena are very often intimately related.

Re: The Wear Resistance vs. Thermo-Mechanical Deterioration Dilemma

[0011]Ideally, a steel from which railway wheels are made would
simultaneously have high levels of the three general properties
previously described. That is to say that they would be highly wear
resistant, highly resistant to thermo-generated deterioration and
highly resistant to mechanical deterioration. Unfortunately, to
varying degrees, these properties range from being metallurgically
antagonistic to being metallurgically incompatible. For example,
increased hardness in a steel usually implies decreased resistance to
thermo-generated deterioration. Conversely, when a steel is alloyed
to be more resistant to thermo-generated deterioration, this usually
implies that the steel will be less hard, and hence, inherently less
wear resistant.

[0012]Those skilled in this art will also appreciate that the ability
of a given alloying element to create and/or stabilize certain
metallographic phases may be of great importance. Indeed, many steel
alloying elements are categorized around this concept. For example,
chromium, nickel and manganese are often referred to as austenite-
forming elements. Chromium, silicon, molybdenum, tungsten and
aluminum are frequently referred to as ferrite-forming elements.
Another group of elements known as carbide-forming elements includes
chromium, tungsten, molybdenum, vanadium, titanium, niobium, tantalum
and zirconium. In most cases however, any given desired resistance to
thermo-mechanical deterioration through the use of alloys must be
considered in the context of the degree of sacrifice of a steel's
pearlitic structure that will be caused by the specific alloying
elements employed. This remains a very important consideration
because a pearlitic structure serves to impart the quality of wear
resistance to steel railroad wheels.

Re: Teachings of the Literature

[0013]The technical and patent literature reveals that many alloying
materials have been added to (or, in the case of carbon, taken from)
a host of railroad wheel steel formulations for the purposes of
striking a balance between imparting hardness (and hence wear
resistance) to a steel and imparting resistance to thermo-mechanical
deterioration. By way of general example only, it is well known that
in situations where wear resistance is the more desired property,
high carbon steels having carbon contents ranging from about 0.65 to
about 1.0 weight percent are preferred. Such steels are especially
hard and, hence, especially wear resistant. Such steels are not,
however, particularly resistant to thermo-mechanical deterioration.
Conversely, it is also well known that medium carbon steels having
carbon contents ranging from about 0.45 to about 0.55 weight percent
are more thermo deterioration resistant than harder steels, but are
generally less wear resistant. It is also common knowledge that
virtually all other steel alloying elements (other than carbon) tend
to produce decreased wear resistance in railroad wheels as their
concentrations are increased.

[0014]The technical literature also shows that it has been a long
standing custom to consider steel alloying elements in terms of the
properties they confer upon a steel (e.g., chromium makes a steel
hard, nickel and manganese make it tough, and so on). It should be
appreciated however that some of these custom based statements can
lead to misunderstandings. For example, when a statement to the
effect "chromium makes a steel hard, and hence, wear-resistant," is
encountered, one should realize that     author of such a statement
probably has in mind a steel having a relatively high (e.g., 1.2%)
carbon concentration and a relatively high (e.g., 2.0%) chromium
concentration. If, however, a steel contained the same 2.0% chromium
concentration--but only a 0.10% carbon concentration--the hardness of
that steel would be considerably lower than that of the 1.2% carbon,
2.0% chromium steel. Similarly, if a statement to the effect that
"manganese makes a steel tough" is encountered, one should realize
that the author of such a statement probably has a steel with a high
(e.g., 13%) manganese concentration in mind because, in fact, steels
containing lower manganese concentrations (e.g., 1.0% to 5.0%
manganese), especially in conjunction with other alloys, can have
relatively higher levels of toughness.

[0015]This all goes to say that the wear resistance versus thermo-
mechanical resistance problem has a persistent dilemmatic quality
that continues to thwart the railroad industry's attempts to extend
the useful life of railway wheels. It also should be noted that
railroad wheel steel designers have long accepted that thermo-
engendered deterioration is the more intractable aspect of the wear
resistance versus thermo-mechanical deterioration resistance dilemma.
Aside from economic considerations, this acceptance generally follows
from the fact that normal wear is somewhat predictable, and gradual,
in nature. Heat producing wheel skids on the other hand are
relatively unpredictable. Worse yet, thermo-generated deterioration
tends to produce damage that is much more immediate and much more
severe in nature. Nonetheless, most railway wheel steel compositions
are still designed toward trying to (for economic reasons) satisfy
railroad industry requirements for greater wear resistance, while
"silently" conceding that thermo deterioration due to wheel skids,
and/or mechanical deterioration in its own right, will be dealt with
by: (1) physically machining railway wheel tread/flange regions on a
scheduled basis to meet mandated wheel flange dimensions, or (2) by
machining heavily spalled wheels on an "as needed" basis, or (3) by
simply scrapping more heavily damaged wheels.

Re: Theoretical Considerations

[0016]Thus far, alloying theories have been of somewhat limited value
in dealing with the wear resistance vs. thermo-mechanical
deterioration dilemma. For example, even though the constitution of
three component steels can theoretically be deduced from ternary
phase diagrams, they are often rather difficult to interpret. Their
practical value is also limited by the fact that they only describe
equilibrium conditions. Therefore, since most modern railroad wheel
steels are both heat treated during their manufacture and contain
more than three alloying components, much more complex graphing
methods (e.g., Temperature Time Transformation diagrams) must be
employed and interpreted--thus far with varying degrees of success as
far as railroad wheel steels are concerned.

[0017]Indeed, it seems fair to say that even though modern steel
metallurgy is a highly skilled and scientific art, it nonetheless,
has certain elements of empiricism in some circumstances wherein even
relatively minor changes in the identity and/or relative
concentrations of any given alloying element can potentially make
very significant changes in the resulting properties of a given
steel. Further complexities arise from various heat treatment
processes to which these steels are usually exposed. These competing
considerations are very nicely summarized by Dr. Edgar C. Bain on
page 4 of his now somewhat dated, but still very highly regarded,
work on this subject: "Functions of the Alloying Elements in Steel."
There, he said: [0018]"The author has been forced to conclude that it
is unproductive to attempt to correlate systematically ultimate
mechanical properties directly with the presence of the several
common alloying elements without considering the proportion of the
element, the carbon content, and above all, the heat-treatment
employed and the final structure. Thus, it would seem almost
misleading to say, without qualification, that any certain element
contributes, for example, hardness and toughness to steels without
stating in what composition and after which treatment. It is now
established that an element does not, merely by its auspicious
presence alone, contribute a property, as sugar lends sweetness,
without regard for the structure favored by the element under
specific circumstances."

[0019]This concession to empiricism has not changed much over the
years since Dr. Bain's work was published. For example, in discussing
the alloying of steels, the Encyclopedia Britannica Online makes a
much more up-to-date concession to steel alloying empiricism with the
statement: [0020]"Alloying elements are added to steel in order to
improve specific properties such as strength, wear, and corrosion
resistance. Although theories of alloying have been developed, most
commercial alloy steels have been developed by an experimental
approach with occasional inspired guesses."

[0021]The patent literature also reflects the railway industry's
attempts to deal with the wear resistance vs. thermo-mechanical
deterioration dilemma. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,783,610 ("the
'610 patent") discloses two distinct railroad wheel steels. The first
is comprised of 0.67 to 0.77 wt. % carbon, 0.65 to 0.85 wt. %
silicon, 0.70 to 0.85 wt. % manganese, less than 0.025 wt. %
phosphorous, 0.18 to 0.25 wt. % chromium, 0.08 to 0.12 wt. %
molybdenum, and less than 0.025 wt. % sulfur. The second steel is
comprised of 0.16 to 0.45 wt. % carbon, 0.50 to 0.70 wt. % silicone,
0.90 to 1.10 wt. % manganese, less than 0.035 wt. % phosphorous, 0.40
to 0.60 wt. % chromium, 1.0 to 1.5 wt. % nickel, 0.40 to 0.60 wt. %
molybdenum and less than 0.035 wt. % sulfur. These railroad wheel
steels are intended to thwart various forms of thermo-mechanical
deterioration. For example, the '610 patent disclosure teaches that
its steels' molybdenum and chromium components will serve to increase
the minimum temperature at which fatigue cracks will occur. This in
turn will decrease the time the tread steel is above a given critical
temperature. It is also noted in this patent disclosure that the
mechanical portion of the thermal-mechanical deterioration process
derives largely from rolling contact fatigue which is exacerbated by
increased wheel loads and travel speeds. Moreover, the '610 patent
describes several intimate relationships between rolling contact
fatigue and various heat considerations, e.g., the effects of thermal
stresses, reduced steel strength at elevated temperatures and time-at-
temperature considerations.

[0022]The differences between the alloyed steels taught in the '610
patent and the alloyed steels disclosed in Applicants' patent
disclosure are as follows. Applicants employ niobium while the '610
patent does not. Moreover, the nickel concentration ranges of the
respective patent disclosures do not overlap. Applicants' second
steel employs 0.20 to 0.30 wt. % molybdenum while the '610 patent
teaches use of 0.08 to 0.12 wt. % or 0.40 to 0.60 wt. % molybdenum.
Finally, Applicants' second steel employs vanadium while and the '610
patent's steels do not.

[0023]U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,372,057 and 6,663,727 ("the Fujimura, et al.
patents") each teach pearlitic steel railroad wheel steels whose less
complex compositions contain 0.40 to 0.77 wt. % carbon, 0.40 to 1.20
wt. % silicon, 0.40 to 1.20 wt. % manganese, 0.003 to 0.060 wt. %
aluminum, up to 0.0030 wt. % oxygen (and preferably between 0.0005 to
0.0030 wt. % oxygen) with the balance being iron and trace
impurities. These patents also disclose more complex steel
compositions having 0.40 to 0.77 wt. % carbon, 0.25 to 0.60 wt. %
silicon, 0.40 to 1.20 wt. % manganese, up to 0.030 wt. % phosphorous,
up to 0.35 wt. % chromium, up to 0.10 wt. % niobium, up to 0.15 wt. %
nickel, up to 0.10 wt. % molybdenum, up to 0.10 wt. % vanadium, 0.005
to 0.030 wt. % sulfur, 0.003 to 0.060 wt. % aluminum, up to 0.003 wt.
% oxygen, up to 0.35 wt. % copper, up to 0.015 wt. % nitrogen, up to
0.005 wt. % boron, up to 0.10 wt. % titanium, up to 0.0050 wt. %
calcium and up to 0.00025 wt. % hydrogen. These steels were primarily
formulated to prevent the phenomenon known as "shattered-rim
fracture" which stems from internal defects in the wheel steel such
as inclusions, pores, voids, cavities, pinholes and the like.

[0024]There are many differences between the alloying ingredients
(and/or their concentrations) employed by Applicants and those taught
by Fujimura, et al. For example, one of Applicants' alloys employs
0.20 to 0.30 wt. % molybdenum while Fujimura, et al. teach use of
only up to 0.10 molybdenum. More importantly the Fujimura, et al.
references teach the use of aluminum, oxygen, copper, nitrogen,
boron, titanium, calcium and hydrogen to alloy their steels while
Applicants use none of these elements.

[0025]U.S. Pat. No. 6,387,191 ("the '191 patent") teaches pearlitic
railroad wheel steels having 0.60 to 1.0 wt. % carbon, 1.1 to 3.0 wt.
% silicon, 0.45 to 0.85 wt. % manganese, 0.50 to 1.0 wt. % chromium
and less than 0.050 wt. % sulfur. These steels are especially
resistant to martensite transformations, and hence spalling. The
addition of their chromium component makes them particularly
resistant to such spalling. Applicants' present railroad wheel steels
differ from those taught in the '191 patent in several respects. For
example, Applicants' present invention employs niobium, nickel,
molybdenum and vanadium while the steels described in the '191 patent
do not.

[0026]U.S. Pat. No. 5,899,516 teaches that pearlitic steels having
0.40 to 0.75 wt. % carbon, 0.40 to 0.95 wt. % silicon, 0.6 to 1.20
wt. % manganese, less than 0.030 wt. % phosphorous, less than 0.20
wt. % chromium, up to 0.1 wt. % nickel, less than 0.03 wt. % sulfur
and 0.25 to 1.0 wt. % copper have both wear resistance and heat-crack
resistance. The pearlitic structure of these steels should be at
least 50 mm in depth from the tread surface. In order to attain this,
a particular quenching process also is taught in this patent
disclosure. More specifically, the '516 patent teaches interruption
of its cooling operation after the steel's cooling curve has passed
through its pearlite transformation region, but before said curve
descends to the steel's martensite transformation region. Thus, the
steels taught by the '516 patent are given fine pearlitic structures
and nicely avoid martensitic transformation conditions that might
otherwise be encountered during the manufacture of these steels--and
the wheels made from them. Unfortunately, however, many martensite
transformation conditions produced by the heat generated by heavy
braking conditions do not coincide with the martensite transformation
conditions that can be avoided in highly controlled manufacturing
processes such as those disclosed in the '516 patent. As far as
differences in alloying materials are concerned, Applicants employ
niobium while the '516 patent disclosure does not teach their use.

[0027]U.S. Pat. No. 2,041,635 ("the '635 patent") teaches that
railroad wheel steels having 0.05 to 0.20 wt. % carbon, 0.1 to 0.6
wt. % silicon, 0.6 to 1.6 wt. % manganese, 0.08 to 0.25 wt. %
phosphorous and 0.25 to 1.0 wt. % copper can be improved upon with
respect to their wear resistance and shock resistance by inclusion of
up to 1.5% chromium in said steels. As far as alloying element
differences are concerned, Applicants employ chromium, niobium,
nickel, molybdenum and vanadium. These elements are not mentioned in
the '635 patent. Moreover, Applicants do not use the copper component
taught by the '635 patent.

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090051182#ixzz0bNuRPGQL

I presume this is something different from the 'typical' chilled-
tread wheel that is fabricated 'in one piece' (so the flange shares
the metallurgical structure of the tread).

Likewise presume this is not one of the fairly well-known issues with
'chilled' flanges being more brittle in the first place.

See here

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2001000354

for a start on what sort of metallurgical structure might be
beneficial to integrity, but destroyed by excessive tread heating.

(BTW, I thought many, perhaps most, of the modern MU sets had disc
brakes, precisely to avoid tread overheating or burning.  Evidently
this has changed...

...on the robustness against derail of rail equipment...

Recent event 'here' (Boston, MA, USA, news link on request).
Third rail 'subway' EMUs.  (Some surface trackage.)

Set derailed leaving 'west end' (Names are geographical fiction,
for those not familiar with area...).  Low speed, no one hurt.
Examination showed:
   One wheel had shed a 'rim portion'. (1)
   Said shedding had been 15ish mi previous, a 'South End.'
   Said Wheel WORKING TRAILING, as part of a 6 (?) car set,
   the 15ish miles had stayed on the rail...
   When the set reversed, defective wheel (sans 'rim', etc) (1)
   had almost immediately derailed.  (The reverse move involved
   pointwork yaddah...)

(1)
   Some, i think will know this, some not:
   What LOOKS Like one piece of steel, on modern rail wheels,
   and IS in fact 'one piece', has a subtlety.  The
   manufacturing involves a careful cooling/quenching of
   rim (ish) (treadish/flangish) area, resulting in a DIFFERENT
   microstucture, effectively a tread/rim WITH NET compressive
   force on the 'rest' of the wheel.  This is dandy for wear,
   sounder than separate rim, BUT IF OVERHEATED BY DRAGGING
   BRAKE, the careful temper/quench is undone, and 'things come
   apart'.

  Or so i understand it.  Professional Rail Paper on this around
  somewhere....

best
  dwp

Ron:

  >Shortening takes too long; you remove one fishplate, if possible on
the
  >outside rail on a curve; pull out the outside dogspikes on seveal
sleepers;
  >push rail outward, putting back one dogspike in former hole to hold
rail in
  >new position.


Ron, this was rather conclusively discredited as a means of actually
*derailing* trains by actual U.S.Army testing (in the Fifties as part
of training for demolitions operations).  Unless, of course, you
leave everything unspiked at high speed, in which case merely pulling
the spikes out works just as well and takes even less time...  ;-}


You are correct about the method, but you move the rail IN (reducing
the gauge) rather than out, to let the wheels drop inside the ties).
Then put all the spikes you can back in the holes on the outside.
This prevents any possibility of the wheels re-railing at the end of
the 'altered' section, as the testing showed they often would.  What
would happen with opened gauge on curves was that the wheels would
drop to the ties, but the inner face of the rail would neatly steer
the wheel faces, and things would go nicely back to flange guiding at
the end of the altered stretch (which could apparently be upward of
three rail lengths in the test demonstrations).  You fix this by
ensuring that one side derails *outside*, at which point default
geometry as well as statistics goes clearly in your favor...

On Thursday 31 December 2009, my mailbox was graced by a missive
  from "Herbert" <herbgarratt@...> who wrote:

>  by interfering with HM's (and others') Colonial permanent ways (the
> lengths of whose rails he shortened...adequately....in the middle of the
> run)!

Shortening takes too long; you remove one fishplate, if possible on the
outside rail on a curve; pull out the outside dogspikes on seveal sleepers;
push rail outward, putting back one dogspike in former hole to hold rail in
new position.

For best effect, do this on an embankment.

Cheers,

Ron.
--
                   Self-government requires self-discipline.
                                              -- Paul Harvey

                    -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --

Kurt!

I suspect your goode self is the 'Darwin' in question, for correctly seeing the
solution, but refraining from publishing, lest you spolie the sporte!

Very gentlemanly, if I may say? Just don't get flattened by a  cyclone, like
ours did, in 1975 (?).

Cheers,
OP



--- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Greske <kurtg.lists2@...> wrote:
>
> Bruce wrote:
> >Hi OP
> >
> >I'll break the ice, and for Kurt's benefit in old fashioned units:
> >
> >11.8 ft (11' 9.6")
> >7.1 ft  (7' 1.2")
> >
> >Regards
> >Bruce
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
>          Fortunately I sent Pete the answers ( more accurately ) off
> list to preserve my priority!
>
>          "You MUST publish, Mr. Darwin!"  ;o)
>
> Kurt
>

Kurt,

There is steam content in that!

T.E.Lawrence, apart from perishing whilst astride a Brough-Superior 998 V-twin
(almost a steam engine?), was known to de-rail certain loks, and trains attached
thereto, by interfering with HM's (and others') Colonial permanent ways (the
lengths of whose rails he shortened...adequately....in the middle of the run)!

Cheers,
Oz Pete



--- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Greske <kurtg.lists2@...> wrote:
>
> Pete wrote:
>
> >Kurt,
> >
> >Hoo approximates the eminence of Charlie D in this matter?
> >
> >I'm devolving, to say nothing of boggling?
>
> G'day Pete,
>
>          Charles Lyell ( "Principles of Geology" ) kept telling
> Charles Darwin that he must publish his ideas lest someone else
> should stumble upon the same thing independently.
>
>          Charles Darwin didn't, and sure enough Alfred Russel Wallace did!
>
>          Well, Charles had a wife he was fond of who was deeply
> religious and he didn't want to upset her.  Alfred Russel Wallace
> wasn't encumbered by that problem.  To Emma Darwin's credit, she
> spent the last about fourteen years of her life after Charles died
> defending his theory of evolution against all comers!!  It's a rare
> wife you can count on for THAT degree of reliability!!
>
> ( Sir Richard Burton's ( the old one, not Liz Taylor's husband -- we
> need more friends of the Arabs like him ( and T.E. Lawrence (* see
> below) )!! ) wife burned all of his papers when he died!
>
> ( (*) "The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap
> from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They
> have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The
> Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have
> been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody
> and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our
> imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure.
> We are today not far from a disaster." -- T.E. Lawrence, "Report on
> Mesopotamia", The Sunday Times (August 22, 1920)
>
> ( As bad as Bush and Obama eighty plus years later!!!  Some idiots
> NEVER learn!!! )
>
> Kurt
>

Pete wrote:

>Kurt,
>
>Hoo approximates the eminence of Charlie D in this matter?
>
>I'm devolving, to say nothing of boggling?

G'day Pete,

          Charles Lyell ( "Principles of Geology" ) kept telling
Charles Darwin that he must publish his ideas lest someone else
should stumble upon the same thing independently.

          Charles Darwin didn't, and sure enough Alfred Russel Wallace did!

          Well, Charles had a wife he was fond of who was deeply
religious and he didn't want to upset her.  Alfred Russel Wallace
wasn't encumbered by that problem.  To Emma Darwin's credit, she
spent the last about fourteen years of her life after Charles died
defending his theory of evolution against all comers!!  It's a rare
wife you can count on for THAT degree of reliability!!

( Sir Richard Burton's ( the old one, not Liz Taylor's husband -- we
need more friends of the Arabs like him ( and T.E. Lawrence (* see
below) )!! ) wife burned all of his papers when he died!

( (*) "The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap
from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They
have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The
Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have
been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody
and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our
imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure.
We are today not far from a disaster." -- T.E. Lawrence, "Report on
Mesopotamia", The Sunday Times (August 22, 1920)

( As bad as Bush and Obama eighty plus years later!!!  Some idiots
NEVER learn!!! )

Kurt

Kurt,

Hoo approximates the eminence of Charlie D in this matter?

I'm devolving, to say nothing of boggling?

Cheers,
OP

--- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Greske <kurtg.lists2@...> wrote:
>
> Bruce wrote:
> >Hi OP
> >
> >I'll break the ice, and for Kurt's benefit in old fashioned units:
> >
> >11.8 ft (11' 9.6")
> >7.1 ft  (7' 1.2")
> >
> >Regards
> >Bruce
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
>          Fortunately I sent Pete the answers ( more accurately ) off
> list to preserve my priority!
>
>          "You MUST publish, Mr. Darwin!"  ;o)
>
> Kurt
>

Laze & Gemmen (sorry Veronica!),

Wellllllll......I've just had my last heavy application for 2009
(well...nearly!), and badly need a recharge, or I'll break away.

Cheers,
OP



--- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, Veronica Merryfield <veronica.merryfield@...>
wrote:
>
> > Gents,

> ??


> > If you smarties are going to figure out these doovers, even BEFORE New
Year's Eve, I'm going back to air brake questions!

> Lets do it :)

> Gents,
??
>
> If you smarties are going to figure out these doovers, even BEFORE New Year's
Eve, I'm going back to air brake questions!

Lets do it :)

Gents,

Now look!

If you smarties are going to figure out these doovers, even BEFORE New Year's
Eve, I'm going back to air brake questions! Those seem to cause mumblings and
chunnerings, and staring at decanter bases, and referring to boox, &c?

But.....I still haven't heard the (high school) logic?

Bah! Humbug!

Cheers,
OP

--- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, "Herbert" <herbgarratt@...> wrote:
>
> Bruce,
>
> Very, VERY close!
>
> Your longer difference between rails is slightly out.
> Your shorter difference between rails is out by 3 times the other error, but
you are CLOSE!
>
> Now....wot woz your logic?
>
> Re the accuracy required, despite the fact that Kurt did send me, off-list,
ahead of everybody else (honest injun!), the correct answers, quite accurately,
your answers are close enough that the judges (that's all of YOU) can only
decide placement on merit of logic, I'd say?
>
> Well done!
>
> Cheers,
> OP


> --- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Bellingham <steamingkiwi@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi OP
> >
> > I'll break the ice, and for Kurt's benefit in old fashioned units:
> >
> > 11.8 ft (11' 9.6")
> > 7.1 ft  (7' 1.2")
> >
> > Regards
> > Bruce



> > On 31/12/2009, at 03:35 , Herbert wrote:
> >
> > > Gents,
> > >
> > > This year's brainteaser is not especially difficult, but it's not
immediately apparent, either...until thought about.
> > >
> > > A perfectly circular track (a la lounge room floor, for young children),
has a difference between the lengths of the inner and outer rails (LHS, and RHS
rails) that is pretty quickly calculated, once we know the gauge and the radius,
at the centre line.
> > >
> > > But, let's take a hypothetical full size track, of 3'-0" (or 914.4mm)
gauge, to make it easy for Kurt, 100 miles long, where the true bearing of the
departure road (whilst departing), at one end, is due West (270 degrees).
> > >
> > > On the intervening 100 miles, there are 45 left hand bends, averaging 12
chains (792'-0", or 241.4m) radius at the centre line, and 29 right hand bends,
averaging 10.5 chain radius (you can all do the proportional maths for the
metric equivalent). The included angle of these bends, apiece, or totally is not
divulged, though the latter will be obvious, in a relative sense (LH relative to
RH bends). There are no spirals on this road. All bends are less than 360
degrees in included angle.
> > >
> > > The arrival road (whilst arriving), at the other end, has a bearing of
dead on North-East (045 degrees).
> > >
> > > Wot is the difference between the lengths of the LH and the RH rail, on
this road?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Oz Pete

> >
>

Bruce,

Very, VERY close!

Your longer difference between rails is slightly out.
Your shorter difference between rails is out by 3 times the other error, but you
are CLOSE!

Now....wot woz your logic?

Re the accuracy required, despite the fact that Kurt did send me, off-list,
ahead of everybody else (honest injun!), the correct answers, quite accurately,
your answers are close enough that the judges (that's all of YOU) can only
decide placement on merit of logic, I'd say?

Well done!

Cheers,
OP



--- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Bellingham <steamingkiwi@...> wrote:
>
> Hi OP
>
> I'll break the ice, and for Kurt's benefit in old fashioned units:
>
> 11.8 ft (11' 9.6")
> 7.1 ft  (7' 1.2")
>
> Regards
> Bruce
>
> On 31/12/2009, at 03:35 , Herbert wrote:
>
> > Gents,
> >
> > This year's brainteaser is not especially difficult, but it's not
immediately apparent, either...until thought about.
> >
> > A perfectly circular track (a la lounge room floor, for young children), has
a difference between the lengths of the inner and outer rails (LHS, and RHS
rails) that is pretty quickly calculated, once we know the gauge and the radius,
at the centre line.
> >
> > But, let's take a hypothetical full size track, of 3'-0" (or 914.4mm) gauge,
to make it easy for Kurt, 100 miles long, where the true bearing of the
departure road (whilst departing), at one end, is due West (270 degrees).
> >
> > On the intervening 100 miles, there are 45 left hand bends, averaging 12
chains (792'-0", or 241.4m) radius at the centre line, and 29 right hand bends,
averaging 10.5 chain radius (you can all do the proportional maths for the
metric equivalent). The included angle of these bends, apiece, or totally is not
divulged, though the latter will be obvious, in a relative sense (LH relative to
RH bends). There are no spirals on this road. All bends are less than 360
degrees in included angle.
> >
> > The arrival road (whilst arriving), at the other end, has a bearing of dead
on North-East (045 degrees).
> >
> > Wot is the difference between the lengths of the LH and the RH rail, on this
road?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Oz Pete
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Kurt and Bruce,

I must be honest in saying that Kurt's answer(s) were correct and first, but
NOBODY except Veronica, off-line, has divulged the logic, and she made the
*minor* error (to examiners) of being ever so slightly incorrect, too (which, in
this case, is NOT like being 'a little bit pregnant'?).

But she has, at least, explained her logic, though not the answers. She threw
herself upon the Court and pleaded inertia regarding fingers upon calculator
(a.k.a.: - 'Can't be bothered!.)

Cheers,
OP

--- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Greske <kurtg.lists2@...> wrote:
>
> Bruce wrote:
> >Hi OP
> >
> >I'll break the ice, and for Kurt's benefit in old fashioned units:
> >
> >11.8 ft (11' 9.6")
> >7.1 ft  (7' 1.2")
> >
> >Regards
> >Bruce
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
>          Fortunately I sent Pete the answers ( more accurately ) off
> list to preserve my priority!
>
>          "You MUST publish, Mr. Darwin!"  ;o)
>
> Kurt
>

On 31 Dec 2009, at 00:46, F. Boucher wrote:

> Greetings Everyone,
>
> For your enjoyment.  If anyone has any additions, clarifications,
> or corrections, I would enjoy hearing from you.
>
> http://www.modelgeek.com/modules.php?
> op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=2920
>
> All the best to you,
>
>
>
> Fred Boucher
>
> tot siens,-30-, 73
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Greske <kurtg.lists2@...> wrote (OP
where needed, and there is some level of debate, regarding that!):
>
> At 08:46 AM 12/30/2009 -0800, you wrote:
> >I agree that there are two correct answers.
> >
> >On 2009-12-30, at 8:40 AM, Herbert wrote:
> >
> > > Oh...BTW...I suspect there may be two correct answers, with the
> > given information?
> > >
> > > OP



> G'day Chaps,
>
>          And then there is the problem that the gauge is measured to
> the inside surface of the rail head but the rail bends on it's
> vertical centerline.



[OP ***] Kurt, old bean! Happy New Year, and may your sights never fail in their
accuracy as you fend off those Inland Revenue sharks! God bless cactii!

Now....for the sake of argument (and simplicity), I have ignored the horizontal
distance between 'the gauge line' (inner/running face of the railhead) and the
*vertical* centroid/neutral axis/centre line of the rail.

You are, of course, correct, in that that figure would affect the total lengths
of rail, but for the sake of the puzzle (and it's more one of the mind), that
quite valid portion of the practical engineering calc (if it WERE **EVER**
needed) has been omitted.



>          We'll ignore that and assume that second order differential
> changes don't count, since Pete didn't say what the width of the rail head
was.



[OP ***] OK, it's 3.75", but it's a condition of entry that this factor should
be ignored for the Judges to consider each answer. It will not affect the logic.



>          Also we need to assume that when Pete said, "All bends are
> less than 360 degrees in included angle." what he REALLY meant was
> that THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL THE BENDS are less than 360 degrees OVERALL
> included angle -- to avoid Tehachapi Loop's trackage.  IOW, Tehachapi
> loop ITSELF isn't 360 degrees but the sum total of all the turns from
> leaving Bakersfield east bound to arriving in Mojave south bound is
> 90 degrees more than 360 degrees.


[OP **8] Exactement! (almost).

Maybe even better said, internationally in: -

'The sum total of any bend; or group of consecutive, or seriously adjacent
bends, of the same hand (left or right) does not exceed 360 degrees.'

Encapsulated in: -

'there is no spiral on this road'.

Sorry!

I used an Oz vernacular to describe any series of curved rorts summating to a
situation where the road has, by whatever gyrations, done a complete circle, and
is now headed precisely as it arrived, but having observed all other headings in
the meantime, be they on a succession of tangents, RH bends (mostly?), LH bends
(occasionally?...amounting to recidivism?), &c, &c.....

Anyway....what are the answer(s)?

I'm going back to my tin dunny now.

Cheers,
OP

Kurt

Why do you say that track gauge is measured differently on curves?  We always
measure the gauge between the inner surfaces - no matter where.

In a real world situation the surveyors have to deal with the effects of earth
curvature, at a hundred miles apart the difference would be measurable.

Malcolm

To: steam_tech@yahoogroups.com
From: kurtg.lists2@...
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:07:03 -0800
Subject: Re: [steam_tech] Re: 2009 New Year's Brain Teaser - The Real  Thing




























       At 08:46 AM 12/30/2009 -0800, you wrote:

>I agree that there are two correct answers.

>

>On 2009-12-30, at 8:40 AM, Herbert wrote:

>

> > Oh...BTW...I suspect there may be two correct answers, with the

> given information?

> >

> > OP



G'day Chaps,



And then there is the problem that the gauge is measured to

the inside surface of the rail head but the rail bends on it's

vertical centerline.



We'll ignore that and assume that second order differential

changes don't count, since Pete didn't say what the width of the rail head was.



Also we need to assume that when Pete said, "All bends are

less than 360 degrees in included angle." what he REALLY meant was

that THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL THE BENDS are less than 360 degrees OVERALL

included angle -- to avoid Tehachapi Loop's trackage.  IOW, Tehachapi

loop ITSELF isn't 360 degrees but the sum total of all the turns from

leaving Bakersfield east bound to arriving in Mojave south bound is

90 degrees more than 360 degrees.



Kurt


















_________________________________________________________________
Eligible CDN College & University students can upgrade to Windows 7 before Jan 3
for only $39.99. Upgrade now!
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9691819

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Veronica,

Well spotted!

That's a lump of best Hunter Valley black (refer url from Post#: 67646), a pint
of best black ale, a BIG cloud of coal smoke!

Now.....the answer(s)?

Cheers,
OP



--- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, Veronica Merryfield <veronica.merryfield@...>
wrote:
>
> I agree that there are two correct answers.
>
> On 2009-12-30, at 8:40 AM, Herbert wrote:
>
> > Oh...BTW...I suspect there may be two correct answers, with the given
information?
> >
> > OP
> >
> > --- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, "Herbert" <herbgarratt@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Gents,
> > >
> > > This year's brainteaser is not especially difficult, but it's not
immediately apparent, either...until thought about.
> > >
> > > A perfectly circular track (a la lounge room floor, for young children),
has a difference between the lengths of the inner and outer rails (LHS, and RHS
rails) that is pretty quickly calculated, once we know the gauge and the radius,
at the centre line.
> > >
> > > But, let's take a hypothetical full size track, of 3'-0" (or 914.4mm)
gauge, to make it easy for Kurt, 100 miles long, where the true bearing of the
departure road (whilst departing), at one end, is due West (270 degrees).
> > >
> > > On the intervening 100 miles, there are 45 left hand bends, averaging 12
chains (792'-0", or 241.4m) radius at the centre line, and 29 right hand bends,
averaging 10.5 chain radius (you can all do the proportional maths for the
metric equivalent). The included angle of these bends, apiece, or totally is not
divulged, though the latter will be obvious, in a relative sense (LH relative to
RH bends). There are no spirals on this road. All bends are less than 360
degrees in included angle.
> > >
> > > The arrival road (whilst arriving), at the other end, has a bearing of
dead on North-East (045 degrees).
> > >
> > > Wot is the difference between the lengths of the LH and the RH rail, on
this road?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Oz Pete
> > >
> >
> >
>

Greetings Everyone,

For your enjoyment.  If anyone has any additions, clarifications, or
corrections, I would enjoy hearing from you.

http://www.modelgeek.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=vie\
warticle&artid=2920

All the best to you,



Fred Boucher

tot siens,-30-, 73




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bruce wrote:
>Hi OP
>
>I'll break the ice, and for Kurt's benefit in old fashioned units:
>
>11.8 ft (11' 9.6")
>7.1 ft  (7' 1.2")
>
>Regards
>Bruce

Hi Bruce,

          Fortunately I sent Pete the answers ( more accurately ) off
list to preserve my priority!

          "You MUST publish, Mr. Darwin!"  ;o)

Kurt

Hi OP

I'll break the ice, and for Kurt's benefit in old fashioned units:

11.8 ft (11' 9.6")
7.1 ft  (7' 1.2")

Regards
Bruce

On 31/12/2009, at 03:35 , Herbert wrote:

> Gents,
>
> This year's brainteaser is not especially difficult, but it's not immediately
apparent, either...until thought about.
>
> A perfectly circular track (a la lounge room floor, for young children), has a
difference between the lengths of the inner and outer rails (LHS, and RHS rails)
that is pretty quickly calculated, once we know the gauge and the radius, at the
centre line.
>
> But, let's take a hypothetical full size track, of 3'-0" (or 914.4mm) gauge,
to make it easy for Kurt, 100 miles long, where the true bearing of the
departure road (whilst departing), at one end, is due West (270 degrees).
>
> On the intervening 100 miles, there are 45 left hand bends, averaging 12
chains (792'-0", or 241.4m) radius at the centre line, and 29 right hand bends,
averaging 10.5 chain radius (you can all do the proportional maths for the
metric equivalent). The included angle of these bends, apiece, or totally is not
divulged, though the latter will be obvious, in a relative sense (LH relative to
RH bends). There are no spirals on this road. All bends are less than 360
degrees in included angle.
>
> The arrival road (whilst arriving), at the other end, has a bearing of dead on
North-East (045 degrees).
>
> Wot is the difference between the lengths of the LH and the RH rail, on this
road?
>
> Cheers,
> Oz Pete
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 08:46 AM 12/30/2009 -0800, you wrote:
>I agree that there are two correct answers.
>
>On 2009-12-30, at 8:40 AM, Herbert wrote:
>
> > Oh...BTW...I suspect there may be two correct answers, with the
> given information?
> >
> > OP

G'day Chaps,

          And then there is the problem that the gauge is measured to
the inside surface of the rail head but the rail bends on it's
vertical centerline.

          We'll ignore that and assume that second order differential
changes don't count, since Pete didn't say what the width of the rail head was.

          Also we need to assume that when Pete said, "All bends are
less than 360 degrees in included angle." what he REALLY meant was
that THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL THE BENDS are less than 360 degrees OVERALL
included angle -- to avoid Tehachapi Loop's trackage.  IOW, Tehachapi
loop ITSELF isn't 360 degrees but the sum total of all the turns from
leaving Bakersfield east bound to arriving in Mojave south bound is
90 degrees more than 360 degrees.

Kurt

I agree that there are two correct answers.

On 2009-12-30, at 8:40 AM, Herbert wrote:

> Oh...BTW...I suspect there may be two correct answers, with the given
information?
>
> OP
>
> --- In steam_tech@yahoogroups.com, "Herbert" <herbgarratt@...> wrote:
> >
> > Gents,
> >
> > This year's brainteaser is not especially difficult, but it's not
immediately apparent, either...until thought about.
> >
> > A perfectly circular track (a la lounge room floor, for young children), has
a difference between the lengths of the inner and outer rails (LHS, and RHS
rails) that is pretty quickly calculated, once we know the gauge and the radius,
at the centre line.
> >
> > But, let's take a hypothetical full size track, of 3'-0" (or 914.4mm) gauge,
to make it easy for Kurt, 100 miles long, where the true bearing of the
departure road (whilst departing), at one end, is due West (270 degrees).
> >
> > On the intervening 100 miles, there are 45 left hand bends, averaging 12
chains (792'-0", or 241.4m) radius at the centre line, and 29 right hand bends,
averaging 10.5 chain radius (you can all do the proportional maths for the
metric equivalent). The included angle of these bends, apiece, or totally is not
divulged, though the latter will be obvious, in a relative sense (LH relative to
RH bends). There are no spirals on this road. All bends are less than 360
degrees in included angle.
> >
> > The arrival road (whilst arriving), at the other end, has a bearing of dead
on North-East (045 degrees).
> >
> > Wot is the difference between the lengths of the LH and the RH rail, on this
road?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Oz Pete
> >
>
>