Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

August 01, 2014 07:37PM avatar
The FRA requires speedometers above 20 mph not ATS.

470's were allowed 45 mph, and did so occasionally did so. They regularly hit 35 on the 3 rail south of Alamosa.

The Valley Line had light rail and was not maintained to run at anything above 20mph.

480-490's were limited to 35mph. Old heads tell me if anyone claimed to run faster than that, they were lying. At 35 the engines began to hunt from side to side terribly.

The deal is you can balance an engine's reciprocating mass (rods) or you can balance the piston thrust, but not both. In the cases where the reciprocating mass was balanced, a pilot truck with greater lateral resistance was used to tame the piston thrust.

The case of the 480-90's a flexible lead truck was needed to negotiate the curves, this pretty much left the piston thrust to do it's thing and at about 35mph it did its thing by making the engine hunt wildly from side to side.

470's could run faster because the lighter wieght of the running gear, and the smaller pistons created less piston thrust. They also carry a greater portion of their weight on the pilot truck, keeping the front planted against piston thrust.
Subject Author Posted

Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

kcsivils July 31, 2014 03:50PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

dougvv July 31, 2014 04:24PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

rehunn July 31, 2014 05:43PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

trainrider47 August 01, 2014 08:50AM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

philip.marshall July 31, 2014 07:45PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

stanames July 31, 2014 07:53PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

John Hewlett July 31, 2014 09:05PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

snowtownbob August 01, 2014 04:38AM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

Jeff Taylor August 01, 2014 08:09AM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

Skip August 01, 2014 05:45PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

dougvv August 01, 2014 07:11AM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

jcpatten August 01, 2014 08:08AM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

philip.marshall August 01, 2014 10:11AM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

Bob Foley August 01, 2014 12:05PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft. - NG-15s

kcsivils August 01, 2014 11:27AM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft. - NG-15s

trainrider47 August 01, 2014 12:20PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft. - NG-15s

kcsivils August 01, 2014 12:32PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft. - NG-15s

christensenge August 01, 2014 04:18PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft. - NG-15s

Mr. Ed August 01, 2014 05:19PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft. - NG-15s

christensenge August 01, 2014 09:36PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft. - NG-15s

kcsivils August 01, 2014 05:46PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

jim pallow August 01, 2014 06:05PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

Earl August 01, 2014 07:37PM

Re: Speed debate again - 3 ft. versus 2 ft.

Brian Norden August 01, 2014 09:51PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login