<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>CARRIAGE AND RAILCAR BOGIES: THEIR DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT--IV</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/11550</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Design factors considered in this part include brake ratios; axle fatigue; adhesion, and P.D.  More effective braking will require ratios 1:1.5 to 2.2 of the tare weight, cut back to 0.8 at lower speeds.  A routine method of axle fatigue calculation indicating the influence of such design variables as fillet radii, type of vehicle, speeds, whether four-wheeler or bogie, and so on, relating to dynamic load allowance and other factors is long overdue.  Adhesion improvement through truck linkage to the body at low level requires care that bogie pitching will not cause high stress peaks at the kingpin or cause intense shuttle of the body.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Dec 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/11550</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>BOGIE DESIGN FOR ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES--1</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/11496</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Methods are given for limiting transverse forces on the track, and stresses on the bogie and body.  The design concepts are discussed from the aspects of both wheel diameter and bogie oscillations.  The use of rubber as a cushioning medium is also described.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Dec 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/11496</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>COMPOSITION BRAKE BLOCKS--INTERACTION BETWEEN COMPOSITION BRAKE BLOCKS AND WHEELS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/7672</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The service tests with various makes of K-block on the Berliner S-Bahn are described.  The object of the tests was to study the interaction of the two friction elements, block/wheel.  Although a strong tendency for the formation of cracks in wheel tires had occasionally been observed with K-blocks, in the service tests such a tendency could not be detected.  All the stages of grooving and follow-wear were present on the tires.  Similar phenomena had been observed by the SNCF on suburban services.  Experience gained by the DB showed that some difficulty arose due to metallic particles sometimes becoming embedded in the braking surface of the block.  K-blocks were used extensively on the London Transport Underground lines.  Thermal cracking, tire spalling and wear constituted a special problem on the frequently-stopping motor coaches with heavily-loaded small diameter wheels, running in tube tunnels.  The performance of a K-block depended on various parameters: characteristics of the block and of the wheel steel, application conditions, service conditions, weather, and shape of block.  The development of a universal K-block would be difficult.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Dec 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/7672</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WHEEL, AXLE, AND RAIL STRESS PROBLEMS RELATED TO HIGHER CAPACITY CARS--WHEEL PROBLEMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/7581</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Factors to consider in selecting a wheel for high capacity cars--aside from dimensional compatibility with the rail and truck, are wheel class, wheel diameter, and rim thickness.  Rim thickness determines replacement period and is primarily a function of car utilization.  Wheel diameter determines stress in the contact area of the wheel tread and rail.  Wheel class determines relative resistance of wheels to wear and service damage, principally shelling and thermal cracking.  Safety and economy of the operation depends largely on freedom from excessive shelling, thermal cracking, and rapid wear, all commensurate with the cost of new wheels, reconditioning, and maintenance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/7581</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILROAD - RAIL STRESS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/7509</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A test was conducted by Electro-Motive Division, G.M.C., to measure stresses in 60- and 72-lb. rerolled rails on branch track.  AAR believes that the maximum computed rail stress including impact or speed effect should be limited to 35,000 psi, for speeds of 35 mph. and less.  Over 35 mph, the stress should be limited to 30,000 psi.  For 72-lb. rail, the EMD diesel, had a computed rail stress of 35,000 psi, at 4 mph, so it would not seem advisable to operate this locomotive at more than 10 mph. For C, and N. W. diesel the maximum speed of 35 mph, is the limiting speed for the allowable stress of 35,000 psi. The 35 mph limit is also applicable to loaded coal car. The EMD diesel should not be operated on 60-lb rail. The C and N. W. diesel had a computed rail stress of 35,000 psi at 34 mph.  The loaded coal car reached this stress at 19.5 mph, on 60-lb rail.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/7509</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WHEEL, AXLE, AND RAIL STRESS PROBLEMS RELATED TO HIGHER CAPACITY CARS PART 1 AXLE PROBLEMS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/7577</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper submits some fundamental considerations in the design of axles and propose two new axle designs of 72,000 and 80,000 pounds capacity.  Larger axle design standardization must satisfy a wide range of car geometry factors such as (a)  center of gravity height from 72 to 94 in and (b)  wheel diameter ranging up through 40 in. The effect of these factors on axle capacity is shown by curves derived from the Reuleaux formula; serious deficiencies in this formula are also discussed.  Other primary axle design factors presented are (c)  wheel seat design (f)  effect of switches, frogs, and crossings (e)  effect of curved track (h)  effect of flat spots and shellouts of wheel treads.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/7577</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>STUDIES OF THE PRESSURE AS AFFECTED BY THE AREA OF CONTACT BETWEEN WHEEL AND RAIL. EFFECT OF WHEEL SIZE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/5026</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The following is a progress report on one phase of this investigation, namely, rolling-load tests in which wheels of various diameters are rolled to and fro on a short length of rail for the purpose of determining the number of cycles of load application required to produce failure.  The results of the rolling-load tests to fracture show considerable "scatter" and no very marked difference between the results of tests under a 50-in. wheel and those from tests under a 33-inch wheel.  The vertical wear on rail 757C (33-in. wheel) was 0.046 in. at failure, whereas the wear on rail 757C1 (50-in. wheel) at 580,900 cycles was 0.041 in.  At failure, 750,100 cycles, the wear on rail 757C1 was 0.0425 in.  A second type of test being tried to ascertain the effect of wheel size on the rail is to measure the depth of work hardening in the rail head.  The rail head appeared to have been work hardened down to a depth of about 0.45 in. by the 33-in. wheel with a maximum hardness of 296 at a depth of 0.15 in.  A test on a section from the same rail rolled with the 50-in. wheel appears to have been work hardened down to a depth of 0.20 in. with a maximum hardness of 269 at a depth of 0.10 in.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/5026</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE EFFECT OF THE RATIO OF WHEEL DIAMETER TO WHEEL LOAD ON EXTENT OF RAIL DAMAGE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/5023</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This is a report of progress on studies of pressure as affected by the area of contact between wheel and rail.  One phase of this investigation involves the conduct of rolling load tests of rails subjected to wheels of various diameters and loads.  To summarize, a depth hardness survey on a 112-lb rail removed from service after approximately 12,000,000 tons of traffic shows the maximum hardness to be at a depth of approximately 0.04 in. at a distance of 1-3/6 in. from the center of the head toward the gage side, the maximum hardness being Rockwell C 34.6.  Tests on a full section 131-lb rail under a 75,000-lb load after 1,333,000 cycles (100,000,000 tons) of testing are as follows:  For the 33 in. wheel--a hardness of Rc 15 on the tread and a maximum of Rc 32 at a depth of 0.15 in.; for the 50 in. wheel--a hardness on the tread of Rc 23 and a maximum hardness of Rc 27.4 at a depth of 0.10 in.  Using "mutilated" head specimens and a 50-in. wheel it was found that a 58,000-lb load could be carried for 100,000,000 tons, but that a 63,000-lb load would break down the rail tread after 15-45 million tons.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/5023</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FINAL REPORT ON THE STUDY OF SIMULATED RAILS UNDER REPEATED ROLLING LOAD</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/11709</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This investigation has studied some of the factors which might contribute to shelly failure formation.  The investigation has been directed particularly toward a study of the effects of progressive plastic deformation resulting from repeated rolling-wheel loads.  Some variables introduced were wheel load, wheel radius, and cycles of repeated rolling load.  Experimental evidence suggests that plastic deformation occurs in a rail with early successive load repetition.  Further, the tests show that, although deformation is inelastic, many of the effects of the variables studied would be qualitatively predictable by elastic equations such as the Herz equations and this work suggest that smaller wheel loads or larger diameter wheels would be quite helpful.  It is also interesting to note that the Herz equations would suggest the use of higher strength rails for longer rail life.  This is also in agreement with general observations from actual service and from laboratory tests of rail.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/11709</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WHEEL, AXLE, AND RAIL STRESS PROBLEMS RELATED TO HIGHER CAPACITY CARS--PART IV-EFFECT ON RAIL</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/7578</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Those items that have been found advantageous in reducing shelling caused by higher capacity (85 to 100-ton) cars are wheel loads should be limited in proportion to wheel diameter.  Higher strength material in the rail will greatly reduce shelling but not entirely eliminate it (under the wheel loading conditions existing with 70-ton capacity cars before the allowable load was increased 5%).  Modified rail head contours in today's modern rail sections which approach the average worn wheel condition, have been helpful in reducing shelling.  Rail lubrication on curves extends the rail life but results in the removal of more rails for shelling rather than abrasive wear.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 1994 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/7578</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GAUGING EQUIPMENT IS JUST THE TICKET</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/173124</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In its quest for improved measuring facilities, British Rail's engineering department has installed in one of its works special-purpose equipment for measuring wheels at a post machining stage, and for measuring tyre bores during the machining sequence.  It is shown that the new instruments (micrometers) enable measuring operations to be carried out more easily and quickly than before, with less risk of reading errors.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/173124</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF RAILROAD FREIGHT CAR WHEELS UNDER THERMAL LOADING CONDITIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/164475</link>
      <description><![CDATA[When a wheel is subjected to repeated thermal loading from drag braking conditions, cracks can develop and propagate due to fatigue.  Wheels of 36, 33 and 28 inch diameter were studied using the finite element method.  The wheels were subjected to drag braking thermal inputs of 30, 40 and 50 hp, each applied for 30 minutes.  The fatigue life was calculated for an assumed load history using Miner's linear cumulative damage rule.  The temperature distribution in the wheel was obtained by means of the DOT computer program. The CREEP-PLAST program was then used to calculate the stress and strain distributions.  The stress and strain values increased as the braking horsepower increased.  For the same thermal loading conditions, the calculated fatigue life was lower for the smaller wheels than for the larger wheels.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/164475</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WHEEL SIZES FOR CITY AND SUBURBAN STOCK</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/19105</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Dearth of suitable guiding information brought to a head with long-accepted P-D ratios restricting wheel-diameter reductions which are conducive to wheelset weight-saving, savings in first cost and energy economies.  P-D ratios shown to over simplify the position and recent studies into contact stresses of wheels and rails have given valuable information.  The author shows that maximum contact pressures of higher values than could be accepted by traditional P-D values are currently giving no problems.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 1981 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/19105</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>FRICTION-CREEP AND WEAR STUDIES FOR STEEL WHEEL AND RAIL</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/48821</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Some basic aspects of the friction-creep phenomena in the rolling of a steel wheel on a rail are studied with a qualitative analysis of stress, strain, adhesion and creep in the contact zone and the stresses on the remaining surface of the rail and the wheel. Some pertinent literature on the subject is briefly discussed. A friction-creep test facility was modified and improved to give more accurate friction-creep data. The electrical control and drive system was changed to give accurate speed of rotation and to dynamically brake the two wheels separately. Friction-creep data was taken with braking of both the small and the large wheels. The data obtained with small wheel braking showed higher coefficients of friction than that of the large wheel braking. Some preliminary reasons for the difference are qualitatively discussed. A preliminary study of the nature and progress of wear during rolling was done with two microscopes, installed for each wheel. With the help of a microswitch and flash gun, some qualitative observations were made on one spot on the wheel. Attempts are being made to study the nature and rate of wear quantitatively.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 1977 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/48821</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RAIL IN THE TRACK STRUCTURE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/52048</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A general survey of problems connected with rails: Stresses in the rail, steel and rail specifications, the influence of certain factors such as traffic, wheel radius, axle load, rail section design, track structure and flaws, on service life and rail deterioration, and economic aspects governing types of rail chosen.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 1977 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/52048</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>