Re: English Railway Accident

[RT <r.thomas@cqu.edu.au>]

Tezza wrote:
> 
> "RT" <r.thomas@cqu.edu.au> wrote in message
> 3A9F3687.71001DAF@cqu.edu.au">news:3A9F3687.71001DAF@cqu.edu.au...
> | 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.