Here is some good information from the spookshow site.
http://www.spookshow.net/trucks/trucks.php
Madison Avenue's finest hour.
Timken must have had some of the best marketing people in the business. Scantily-clad women tugging on a rope to pull a 200 ton locomotive. The idea of "Roller-Freight". And, yes, getting the "seed" planted into the minds of the railroad purchasing agents that "friction = bad news".
Of course there are huge advantages to the roller bearing over the plain bearing. But there's no doubt that Timken's marketing strategy paid off in huge dividends and market share.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timken_1111
Timken Roller Freight by Edmund, on Flickr
Good Luck, Ed
gmpullman Sell the sizzle — not the steak.
I had to zoom in to see it, sure enough, Timken called them "friction bearings" in the text.
I would be amazed if there was something from the manufacturers of smooth bearings using this term to describe their offerings.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Timken_Roller-freight by Edmund, on Flickr
Sell the sizzle — not the steak.
Cheers, Ed
doctorwayneYeah, solid bearing might be more apt.
I have always heard the term "plain bearing" for this type of bearing. Everytime I read "friction bearing", I cringe.
doctorwayne Overmod Very fine, even if 'friction bearing' is a repeated sharp stick in the eye... Yeah, solid bearing might be more apt. Wayne
Overmod Very fine, even if 'friction bearing' is a repeated sharp stick in the eye...
Very fine, even if 'friction bearing' is a repeated sharp stick in the eye...
Yeah, solid bearing might be more apt.
Wayne
As a young lad in the early 70s my neighbor got me into the PC kinsman yard as an oiler. During my training they were referred as JOURNAL BRASSES or bronzes. The waste was called either rags or sheepskin. One important thing that was drilled into me was to use your sense of smell before flipping up the lid. And feel the top of the journal. If the bearing was hot the sudden influx of air could set it ablaze and shoot out lava like burning sheepskin at you. It wasn't to be a career for me. The shoestring broke and a lot of people were let go. Even my neighbor who spent thirty some years as a railroad dick (cop). A blind man could see the PC was not doing to well and things were falling apart quickly.
Pete.
You may want to take a look at 1950's Feight CAr Color Guide, vol. 1., Boxcars. All of the photos are contemporary to the ime period and cover (alphabetically) Ann Arbor to Norfolk and Western. It's a bit pricy but there's a lot of good information as to which cars had which trypes of trucks. Realized how old I am by recalling seeing a lot of these road names on trains back in the day (lol)
Hope this helps.
work safe
I've been working to expand on Richard Hendrickson's 2012 work combined with the Model Railroad article from Jeff Smith, to produce a history/HO scale truck comparison in Word. I offer it freely to anyone who would like to use it, expand on it, correct it, whatever. Thanks for the warning about the term "friction bearing" hah, if Hundman failed we're all goners.
But also truly thank you for the Hundman article references. He was always so thorough, and greatly missed as a fountain of rail history. See attached Word file.
This file includes freight trucks, solid bearing and roller bearing, as well as passenger trucks, tender trucks, and steam loco trailing and leading trucks. I have decided to split out locomotive and traction trucks into a separate file and will post that when I get to that point. Take it for what its worth as a work in progress.https://1drv.ms/w/s!AnQGfXsAb08ehMVEUGdzZ9L_4gyXyQ?e=XjgeCV
The trouble with era's with American rolling stock and their trucks is so much was still allowed on home roads, just not interchange and as railroads combined, the home roads got larger and larger.
An excellent 16 page, heavily illustrated article by Richard Hendrickson on freight car trucks appeared in Vol. 4 of the Railway Prototype Cyclopedia, (RP CYC 4). The article spans the 1900-1960 time frame and includes high speed and heavy duty trucks. In addition to trucks, the book also provides photographically illustrated, prototype coverage of such subjects as box car lettering practices, Northwestern Refrigerator (NWX) 40 foot AC&F wood reefers, 70 ton phosphate hoppers as used by ACL, SAL, and SHPX, in Florida's Bone Valley. Wabash also purchased 45 of these cars to haul locomotive sand. The final 11 pages are devoted to the third installment of the quite lengthy, and profusely illustrated article on the AAR twin, offset side hopper as offered in HO by Kadee and, Intermountain, covering cars operated by the C&O, B&LE, Pittsburg & Shawmut, Montour, Cambria & Indiana, NKP, W&LE and P&WV. A LOT of prototype information between two covers.
Dave N. Model makers and the Railway Magazine Editors in the UK unaminously agreed in the 1970s on the 'Era Scheme'. It is great for the modeler. Any model or kit made since then says what era/s the real one ran.
David
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
David, the late John Armstrong attempted a similar broad categorization of USA modeling eras in his book Creative Layout Design, but it obviously had no official status or authoritative backing behind it. For a variety of reasons that particular book never established itself like Track Planning for Realistic Operation but it is well worth seeking out on the used book market or at swap meets.
It might be added that Jeff Wilson also does an analysis of freight car trucks by era in his Kalmbach book on Freight Cars - he doesn't get into all the nooks and crannies that Hundman did in his Mainline Modeler articles. Wilson also gets into boxcar ends and roofs and other features and for MOST modeling purposes pretty much gives you what you need.
By the way it isn't just a matter that our "sprung trucks" have two versus or 3 springs versus the 5 or more of their prototypes, it is that each spring has within it a smaller spring. So you really do not see through the springs on prototype trucks the way you can and do on model trucks with "real" springs. Some modelers fill their "real" springs with small lengths of styrene. I wish them happy and fulfilling lives. But that is why some fussy modelers have turned away from real springs and prefer all-cast truck sideframes.
And yes we are still waiting for the friction-free truck design. There are still hotboxes, and derailments due to hotboxes, in the roller-bearing truck era. Hundman was such a stickler for using the orthodox "vocabulary" of the prototype modeling movement that I was actually shocked to see his use of "friction bearing." What next --"roof walks?" or A/B brake "triple valves?" I understand even "brake wheel" and "stirrup step" are sneered at at prototype modeler meets.
Dave Nelson
As an aside. Here in the UK any model made has the era/s the real item was run. So, for example if you were modeling the early 1950s it would be Era 4 you ran models showing that Era. You know to stay clear of anyearlier or later eras.
Hitachi IEP
BN7150 See my Model Railroad Dictionary...
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Yes, the name "Friction Bearing" is a conspiracy. The American Bearing Manufacturers Association called itself "the Anti-Friction Bearing Manufacturers Association" until 1993. (Wikipedia)
Yes, Japanese fans love trucks. There are many books, magazine articles and websites. However, few can understand the essence of the prototypes from them. See my Model Railroad Dictionary for overviews. Probably only here, for diesel locomotives and passenger cars. And there are some posts for cabeese and others in my blog. I wrote them in Japanese, but if you wish, I'll translate them.
Kotaro Kuriu, Kyoto, Japan
I was not at ALL happy to find the term 'friction bearing' referenced several times in official New York Central motive-power blueprints, including the master wheel-balancing reference for later Mohawks. The rot ran deep!
I've added the scans from Mainline Modeler in my earlier post, as promised.
Bears post and link is also a good source of info.
Mike.
My You Tube
The MRH article I referenced was also by Richard Hendrickson. It may have been an expanded version of what Rob posted.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Don't we have a Japanese poster who has done an extended guide on American truck types and details? (I don't have the patience to look up his actual name, and mean no disrespect thereby!)
EDIT -- he is a few posts down in this thread.
doctorwayneWhile our models tend to show two- or three-spring versions in cast sideframes, or even ones with actual springs, such as are offered by Kadee, many of the real ones had spring packages with many more springs that weren't readily visible.
Of course, I meant just the visible springs on the outer side of the trucks.
https://mrr.trains.com/~/media/import/files/pdf/4/c/c/mr_pi_5-06_freightcartrucks.pdf
Shock ControlDoes such a thing exist?
I'm not sure that it can be called succinct, but Mainline Modeler did a three-part series on trucks.
I'm going to attempt to scan the pages, and will post them here if they appear to be legible.
Shock ControlAlso, three-spring trucks as oppoesed to two-spring.
While our models tend to show two- or three-spring versions in cast sideframes, or even ones with actual springs, such as are offered by Kadee, many of the real ones had spring packages with many more springs that weren't readily visible.
Here are the scans of the Mainline article (Click on the photos for a larger view)
This is great info, thank you both for your replies!
Try this - a presentation from the late Richard Hendrickson. It concentrates on the pre-1960 era. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz_ctrHrDz4wcjJWcENpaDJYbUU/edit
Shock ControlBut I would also like to know when 80- and 100-ton trucks came into use.
Trucks with 70- 77- and 100-ton nominal rating came into widespread use by the 1960s.
Also, three-spring trucks as oppoesed to two-srping.
That varies by design. Trucks with 100-ton capacity almost all have three outboard springs. Others vary. I'll use some examples from different manufacturers.
This Tangent 50-ton truck has two outboard springs.
This 70-ton American Steel Foundries (ASF) pattern 70-ton solid bearing truck has two outboard springs and three in the row behind them.
A 70-ton Barber pattern solid bearing truck with three visible springs.
A 70-ton Barber roller bearing truck with two outboard springs, and a different arrangement of the sideframe casting under the bolster compared to ASF.
A different variety of Barber pattern 77-ton sideframe with three visible springs, similar to their 70-ton sold bearing design.
Note the 70-ton ASF pattern roller bearing truck has a similar spring arrangement to the 70-ton ASF version with solid bearings.
The National type C-1 70-ton truck had a distinctive triangular spring arrangement.
A 100-ton Barber pattern truck. The sideframe cross sections are heavier than the lower capacity versions, and the wheelbase is longer (typically 5'10" if I'm remembering this right vs. 5'8").
This ExactRail 100-ton ASF truck has a different sideframe design compared to the Barber pattern.
Note there are plenty of other variations, including 125-ton trucks, low-profile for specialized cars like autoracks, and so on. Multiple casting companies manufactured trucks with the above patterns, and there could be differences between separate plants for the same manufacturer (e.g. the Moloco ASF 70-ton truck represents one specific to the Granite City, IL plant) Sometimes good prototype information comes with the product descriptions on sites like Moloco or Tangent.
Rob Spangler
The line between the different periods is blurry, because of there was a new requirement, the railroads were given time to comply. So there are big chunks of time when you'd see both the older and the newer together on the same train. In some cases, even the drop dead dates were extended. And many of the rules requiring certain truck types or wheels only applied to interchange - you said you have MOW cars with arch bar trucks, that's perfectly prototypical. Interchanged rolling stock was forced to change the trucks to a cast type, all those arch bars had to go somewhere - they weren't broken, or defective, they just were more prone to failure and required more maintenence than a more modern design. And if an object is still usable to a railroad - they will use it.
There are a few useful guides published by Kalmbach, written by Jeff Wilson. Not sure which are still in print, you may have to find a used copy of some. ANd specifically on trucks, May 2013 MRH had an article on freight car trucks from 1900-1960.