SD70DudeThe GE Tier-IV units have clearance issues too. M636c had a good story about the standard SD70ACe's and one of the iron ore dumpers in Australia.
M636c had a good story about the standard SD70ACe's and one of the iron ore dumpers in Australia.
Size is a consideration - until someone makes the case that bigger is better and forces bigger as being the standard.
The Clearance profiles of 'normal' in the 21st Century are significantly larger than they were at the equivalent point of the 20th Century and at the equivalent point of the 19th Century railroads didn't even exist as a means of transportation - no matter the size.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
SD60MAC9500 bogie_engineer It made it unattractive to develop new and better devices, rather only cheaper versions of the same old thing, which is why we are still using the 3 piece truck in spite of it's well known deficiencies. Dave Speaking of bogies. Check this one out. https://news.cision.com/skf/r/skf-collaborates-with-ats-to-develop-solutions-to-reduce-life-cycle-cost-for-rail-freight,c2774160 http://advancedtrucksystems.com/
bogie_engineer
It made it unattractive to develop new and better devices, rather only cheaper versions of the same old thing, which is why we are still using the 3 piece truck in spite of it's well known deficiencies. Dave
It made it unattractive to develop new and better devices, rather only cheaper versions of the same old thing, which is why we are still using the 3 piece truck in spite of it's well known deficiencies.
Dave
Speaking of bogies. Check this one out.
https://news.cision.com/skf/r/skf-collaborates-with-ats-to-develop-solutions-to-reduce-life-cycle-cost-for-rail-freight,c2774160
http://advancedtrucksystems.com/
Do you have info on which to look up the patent on this truck/bogie? That one illustration of it doesn't give enough to get insight on how it works.
Hydraulic damping on a freight truck in interchange service? Won't that introduce maintenance problems?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicDo you have info on which to look up the patent on this truck/bogie?
Every time I see the ATS truck it reminds me of the Pioneer IV clone under my high-speed rack flats in the mid-'70s, with big fat dampers and air bags that doubled as levelers for loading and unloading. It's not exactly mind-bending novelty...
Overmod If Mr. Goding doesn't tell you I'll send you some information when I get off the road. While you are researching good limber trucks look up the six-wheel design being touted for heavier car weight just before the turn of the last century -- tracking down the intellectual-property rights holder remains an exercise!
If Mr. Goding doesn't tell you I'll send you some information when I get off the road. While you are researching good limber trucks look up the six-wheel design being touted for heavier car weight just before the turn of the last century -- tracking down the intellectual-property rights holder remains an exercise!
This doesn't exactly relate to the topic at hand but I'll answer the challenge anyway.
I searched for a patent or patent application but couldn't find anything using the info on their press release and webpage. The principal at ATS is a former ASF-Keystone guy, I'm sure I must have met him during my two stints there but he was in PA and I was in Granite City, IL. He has some patents on freight car truck devices. Just studying the picture one obvious omission is brakes - doesn't look like there is room for inboard brake beams and shoes so they must plan on outboard. It appears to have steering arms like List patented in the 70's and were used on the DR-1 by Dresser and then the AR-1 after ASF bought out Dresser. Although it looks to have an air spring, I thinking it may be an elastomer spring, perhaps Miner TecsPak which we looked at using when I was at ASF in the early 90's. The truck frame looks to be two heavy flat plates with a very light bolster with low friction polymer sliding plates that engage the car so all the weight is transfered directly from the car, thru the secondary springs into the inboard sideframes so no bending in the bolster, hence it's light design. I actually developed a truck with a similar load path while at ASF - it used as standard sideframe but a struture on the ends of the bolster similarly had a sliding interface to the car using UHMW plastic pads - you can see it here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5438934.PN.&OS=PN/5438934&RS=PN/5438934 I had a prototype of that truck built and it worked very well once I worked out the spring group; it needed a multi-stage group to pass the bunched spiral wheel unloading test on a 36K light weight car. But no car builder, RR, or car buyer wanted it so it went nowhere. Like this truck, no side bearings are required since the weight is borne directly and the friction at that interface gives outstanding stability performance.
In summary, I think this truck will work (and they seem to have tested it since they present data points for curving) but I think it will be an impossible sell, mainly because today's car buyer is not the RR that gets most of the benefit, but a leasing company or shipper that receives very little benefit from a better truck.
bogie_engineer Just studying the picture one obvious omission is brakes - doesn't look like there is room for inboard brake beams and shoes so they must plan on outboard.
Just studying the picture one obvious omission is brakes - doesn't look like there is room for inboard brake beams and shoes so they must plan on outboard.
Mr. Goding your guess would be right about the brakes
Paul I can't find any patents online either.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.