Re: 40 class bogies
Allan Brown (ajbrown@ozemail.com.au)
Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:20:11 +1000
Peter Knife wrote:
>
> Allan Brown wrote:
> >
> > John McCallum wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <626r35$31e$1@lios.apana.org.au>, craigd@lios.apana.org.au (C.
> > > Dewick) wrote:
> > >
> > > >They also did it so they'd never have to worry about the problem of wheels
> > > >on the two driven axles slowly becoming smaller in diameter than the two
> > > >undriven axles. Remember that the if the driven axles slipped, the undriven
> > > >one wouldn't, so it's wheels would be slightly larger in diameter after some
> > > >time in service.
> > >
> > > I do not believe that the difference in diameter between the driven and
> > > undriven wheels would be a problem in service. It must be remembered that the
> > > 40 class, together with the later 43, 44, 45 and 48 classes, had equalized
> > > bogies.
> > > In this type of bogie, the weight of the locomotive is distributed between the
> > > axles by means of beams resting on the axle boxes. The weight on each axle
> > > does not alter because of rough track or uneven wheel wear. This is not case
> > > on 42, 421, 422, 442 and later designs, which were not equalized, and uneven
> > > wear would cause uneven weight distribution.
> > >
> > > John McCallum
> >
> > So far you guys seem to have overlooked the basis of my original
> > question: why equidistant bogies as against the RSD4/5's standard
> > asymmetric ones? I have since found out the reason. I am still waiting
> > for one of you guys to hit on it. Come on; don't let me down.
> >
> > Allan
>
> It's simple. The RSD series had all axles powered, and the centre axle
> was offset to allow for the additional traction motor. The 40 class was
> A1A-A1A and hence there was no need to offset the idler axle (which was
> only there to reduce the axle load.
>
> Cheers
> Peter
Wrong!
Cheers,
Allan