Re: English Railway Accident

["Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au>]

"RT" <r.thomas@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
3A9F3C86.4ADE3B1F@cqu.edu.au">news:3A9F3C86.4ADE3B1F@cqu.edu.au...
| Tezza wrote:
| > "RT" <r.thomas@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
| > | keith malcolm wrote:
| > | > Bill Bolton <billbolton@computer.org> wrote in message
| > | > > "KaMaK" <mckinnon@interact.net.au> wrote:
| > | > > > Generally the retardation capabilities of carriages are superior
to locos
| > | > >
| > | > > Really?  Why do you think this is so?
| > | > >
| > | >
| > | > Ask any driver. A light engine is virtually a runaway, most rolling
stock
| > | > has composite brake shoes, similar to brake pads in a car, acting on
the
| > | > wheels while most locos have cast iron shoes acting on steel wheels,
I'm
| > | > sure you can figure the rest out.
| > |
| > | EH!?   You telling me a loco can't lock its wheels with its brakes?
| >
| > That's just the problem, they do, which of course causes it to lose most
of
| > it's braking effect.
|
| Well - cut it by a third anyway :-)   Coeff. friction steel/steel is
| 0.15 static but 0.10 sliding.
|
| > If so, who the hell was responsible for the design?
| >
| > Many people.
|
| But at least the brakes are effective enough to lock the wheels, which
| I inferred from the earlier post was not the case.

Locked wheels are not the desired result. Locos are bad enough brakers
without locking it up.