NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/railroad/10179

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 1.8 KB | 38 lines

Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU!ajw
From: [e-mail] (Andrew Waugh)
Subject: Re: Oil Bearings (was Re: Grand Canyon Railway)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: CSIRO, Division of Information Technology, Melbourne
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 22:46:00 GMT
Lines: 26

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Iain Campbell) writes:
>As another post has noted, brass was the preferred bearing material in
>railroad usage.  Also, it was my understanding, and I am interested to
>know what other netters know about this, that grease, not liquid oil,
>was the preferred lunricant for car journal bearings.

Brass was certainly the preferred traditional journal metal, however,
by 1953 (at least) the AAR standard journal was made of brass with
a 1/4" lining of white metal.

The preferred lubricant depended on time and place. Just about every
different type of oil and grease has been used. Grease was not popular
in the very severe winters experienced in North America as it froze
solid. The bearing quickly melted the grease, of course, once the
train had started moving, but the friction of the train until this
occurred was very great. Other reasons existed as well. Apparently,
for example, in the Deep South of the USA the hogs learnt that a
norishing feed could be had by raising the lids of the boxes and
drinking the grease!

The problem with oil was that it was more expensive than grease, but
this was solved with the production of cheap mineral oil by the turn
of the century. In countries where oil had to be imported (e.g. the UK)
grease lasted much longer as a lubricant.

andrew waugh