[N&W] Re: C&O T-1 2-10-4

[nw-mailing-list at nwhs.org]

N&W Mailing List wrote:
 > I was reading the C&OHS magazine from March, 2003 about the T-1 2-10-4. On
 > page 18, it stated under DRIVERS that the journals on the driving axle have
 > been bored 1/8 inch larger on the right than on the left. This was to allow
 > the worn left-hand journals to be rebored and used on the right-hand side.
 >
 > Can anyone enlighten me on why they would have two different sized
 > journals? The obvious economic slant doesn't make a lot of sense being as
 > you would only be ahead one set of journals. Anyone have any ideas on a
 > mechanical reason?
 > Jimmy Lisle


I believe this question needs a little clarification.  The journal is the
portion of the axle that receives the load from the bearing, either plain or
roller.  Journals are turned on a lathe, not bored.

Gordon Hamilton
________________________________________________________________
It also means you can't replace them reversed right-to-left.

Rich Weyand
________________________________________________________________
If I understand it correctly, it sounds like they were getting twice the life
out of a journal. I would think that is worth doing.   Jim Nichols
________________________________________________________________
This is speculation as I haven't seen the detail part drawing.  But, the 
trade-offs between 'standardizing' and 'not-standardizing'change when 
considering the amount of material dollars involved in the part, cost of 
bronze, casting costs and such and the man-hours involved in turning out 
the finished detail part.

When the T-1's were introduced, late 1920's early 1930's, all of the 
machining was done on hand set up machine tools where each part had to be 
processed step by step with hand adjusted settings.  So this time could add 
up to a considerable amount.

With computer controlled tools, this would be different.  You make one set 
up and all of the parts use that single set up.

The C&O's thinking may have been that the part was complex and took a long 
time to make from scratch.  So they felt that they would be time and cost 
ahead if they could recapture some of the 'exterior' machining time by 
reusing the part by just a simple boring out to a larger size.

With a fleet of 70-100 locomotives, say, and ten journals per locomotives, 
you are starting to talk about a lot of parts.  One would have to know the 
costs and run the numbers to be certain.  But, it probably made economic 
sense to reuse complex parts with simple rework operations when the parts 
and the 'system' were designed to take advantage of that.

In any industry, however, sometimes ideas like this were touted as a good 
deal, but somebody didn't do a good job with the homework and they were not 
truly economically beneficial.

Gary Rolih, Cincinnati