Talk:Bogie/Archive 1

Archive 1

Too much detail about certain types instead of generalities.

I think the detailed information about certain types of passenger coach bogies in use in the UK should be farmed out to separate articles; it's too specific and gives the article an unnatural focus. Instead we need more generalities about the uses and technologies of bogies. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it now? I need to dig up some more sources though. Wongm (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was too UK-centric so I've added more US information. Hope I haven't overdone it. Biscuittin (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Powered bogies

In point number five,the article mentions "some form of transmission, usually an electrically powered traction motors or a hydraulically powered torque converter." It might be worth adding that often this will be via a cardan shaft to minimise axle load. 81.152.161.60 (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Caterpillar

Use of the company "Caterpillar Inc" should at least have a reference to their site and be properly capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.168.10 (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all caterpillar tracks are the product of Caterpillar Inc. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Unclear Terminology

What is a bolster? What is a plank? What is special about a bogie bolster wagon? Chevin (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Er. Bolster has two different meanings in railways.

On a bogie, the bolster is the component carrying the pivot, and is connected to the bogie frame via the secondary suspension; see this diagram - it's the component running across the middle carrying the center plate and side bearing.

A bolster wagon is a flat wagon with one or more transverse timber baulks known as bolsters; such wagons carry long thin loads such as timber, steel sections, pipes and the like. The load is prevented from rolling sideways by chains, vertical stanchions or both; this photo shows a timber wagon with the bolsters and stanchions painted blue. In Britain, bolster wagons having one or two bolsters are usually four-wheeled; those with three or more bolsters (the LNER had some with seven bolsters) are mounted on bogies, and these are known as bogie bolster wagons. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Never been able to get a straightanswer to that Chevin (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

patent of 1883 by James Cleminson citation

In previous citation, url towards library with temporary pass was used. I've removed dead link towards it, but I was unable to find replacement link for pdf or any equivalent source that could be used as a citation Skeledzija (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't really remove such links (see WP:LINKROT); if you can't find a replacement, you should mark it as inaccessible. If the link is truly dead, add {{dead link}}; if the page exists, but needs registration for access, add {{registration required}}; if you also need to pay for access, use {{subscription required}} instead. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. Sorry for making you do extra work.Skeledzija (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

Does anyone understand this "minimizing centrifugal forces" reference in the opening list of purposes. It kind of sounds like something copied from article to article without it being questioned, which is what I'm doing. It does not seem to me that any reduction in forces would apply EXCEPT that the forces would be distributed over more wheels. Rjstott (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Looked up the reference and the statement here misquoted it so I'm changing it Rjstott (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Truck bogie

Bogie of Sisu K-44.

I have got a question regarding use of "bogies" in trucks. When you check the Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish articles also truck and bus bogies are mentioned. They are missing from this article, so is there another name in English for truck and bus "bogies" or is the arrangement just unknown in the English speaking world? --Gwafton (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sisu Auto's website tells about bogie: [1]. Is the term correct or not? --Gwafton (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the correct term tandem axle for a this kind of arrangement? --Gwafton (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, different people use the terms in different ways... depending on which source/context you look at, "tandem axle" can mean as little as "two, separate axles" or it could mean as much as "two axles, designed as a pair" in a sense which is closer to a bogie. In English, a bogie implies a fixed combination of two (or three) axles, so you'd typically find people talking about a bogie on an 8x4 tipper &c. Obviously a 3-axle bogie isn't "tandem" any more. bobrayner (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In EU legislation two separate axles of which suspensions are independent from each other, with wheelbase max. of 1100, are called double axle. There is a clear difference between these two systems in legislation but this doesn't seem to be the case in spoken language. The three axle system is called tridem. You can find such for example in Dutch GINAF trucks.

However, the article I am currently working on speaks now about tandem axle. Someone can change it if he/she has got evidence that the system is definitely called bogie. Then the description about truck bogies should be included in this article as well. --Gwafton (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

IMHO a bogie (dolly) is a sub-assembly of axles in their own frame. Semi-trailer axles are part of the whole trailer. Incidentally, tandem strictly means in line, and whilst most examples refer to two item in line, there is no reason that there couldn't be three or more.Rjstott (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S., tandems usually are legally defined by the distance between the axles (96” in Illinois). There are “spread” tandems, where the axles interrelate but are farther apart than defined, which count as two single axles rather than a “tandem”. The total legal gross on two singles is greater than one tandem.

Mechanically, and in the industry in general, tandems refer to two driven axles. A live/dead combination with the first axle unpowered is a “pusher”, if the second axle is unpowered it is a “tag”. The “dead” axle usually relates to weight laws rather than actual load, and is usually able to be raised when not needed. If you need the total capacity you get an actual tandem, 6x2s are pretty rare, most often used in farm applications.

Semi tractors are called “single axle” or “tandem”, referring to the drive axles. The set of wheels which goes under the front of a semi-trailer to make it a full trailer is called a “dolly”.

Never heard “bogie” used anywhere but golf. Under trains they are called “trucks”.Sammy D III (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the system in question consists of two axles of which suspension is shared; it does not mean a set of two axles with suspension independent from each other.

It is interesting that in the US "tandem" means a set of two driven axles. It is the same in Finnish language but in Germany and UK tandem seems to mean a set of two axles of which suspension is linked to each other. I am curious how would you call a combination of mutually linked driven and non-driven axle in the US?

A mutually linked set with three axles is called tridem.

The lift axle system is just for adjusting the vertical position of the axle, whereas the lifting tandem system is used to adjust the share of load on each axle. It is a very common system used in Northern Europe. The lifting tandem first developed by Vanaja and later adopted by Sisu is an especially robust system. It is not available in Northern America although Sisu Axles have been used in Kenworth, Peterbilt Western Star etc. Sisu K-44 is particularly interesting – the layout 4×4+2 is quite unknown. --Gwafton (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

First, you know our size and weight laws are HUGE, correct? You have to go to Australia to pull more than in California.

On road trucks each axle is often suspended by its own leaf springs, torsion bars, or air cushions. In these cases, the only connection would be the driveshaft, which telescopes, transmitting torque only, no locating.

Shared suspension would generally be a “Hendrickson” type, with large “walking beams” underslung between the two axles, the center pivot attaches to the frame. One axle goes up, one goes down. Side to side, too, each axle can be at the opposite stop. Pretty dramatic camber. Anyway, there is a third link on top, usually from top of the “pumpkin” to the crossmember above the walking arm pivot. This is for axle torque only, no load or side to side locating. Mack does something similar, but they use the leaf spring for the walking beam. Those are pretty much the only “shared” suspensions we have here. Pretty crude, solid axles and plenty of strength/weight.

A dead axle would never directly attach to a live one, they are always auxiliary, and often sort of a gimmick. Exception: some ready mix trucks have a serious “trailer”. When lifted, the tires are the highest and furthest back part of the truck, when the long hinge opens the axle is pretty far behind the truck. This is loaded, and not only takes load off the rear (probably “spread”) tandem, it also transfers weight to the front axle, AND increases the wheelbase, critical for “bridge formula” laws. You could go 18(000#)-18-18-12, but only wheelbase to 64,000#GVW. Or go to Australia.

You guys do it right, we just sort of muscle (and fuel) our way through. Economy? Half of us drive SUVs with one occupant. Oink.Sammy D III (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

WOW, WAS THAT WRONG. EU runs much heavier. 10 tonnes on a single axle is 110% of 20,000#, 40 tonnes on five axles is 110% of 80,000# on a shorter wheelbase. Tandems are more dramatic, 20 tonnes (twice a single axle) is 130% of 34,000#, So so sorry for underestimating.Sammy D III (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Grover's bogies

These were used on 4-wheel wagons of Queensland Railways. Tabletop (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

"tram bogies often neeed to pivot on the horizontal axis as well" Do bogies on railway carriges and railcars also allow for this? I might reword some section if this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrtone86 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW....

How about a little bit of mention of AMERICAN railroad trucks? We got a list and description of railroad bogies, every single one of which is used in Britain and the only mention I see of the US is that one of these British bogies, the Commonwealth bogie, is manufactured under license from an American company. Then down at the bottom, there is a single picture of a "US style truck with journal bearings", implying that the US railroads still use journal bearings, when in fact they stopped using them long ago. It was Britain that licensed production of the US truck for use on their railroads..45Colt 13:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have tagged the article {{Globalize}}. Thank you for pointing this out. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 18:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of railroad truck parts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for the merge PBS (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The major components of a system should be explained on that system's article, as opposed to a separate definition list. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 21:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

At this point it would mean revising a lot of redirects. Peter Horn User talk 19:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If we decide to merge, I will gladly do that. Saying that something will take a lot of work to fix is not a valid excuse for leaving it in an incorrect state. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 20:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Bogie is a massive topic all on its own. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Favor: I feel that the parts list of an assembly is a fundamental chapter in a topic about that assembly. There are many more massive topics, that alone is not a reason to not group relevant information. JohnnieDarko (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: At this point it would mean revising a lot of redirects. Peter Horn User talk 01:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  Eight redirects is hardly a lot, Peter, and like I said above, I would be glad to update them. It would take me less than a minute to do so. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 01:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  Care to change your vote Peter, seeing how easily I could revisit the eight redirects? – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 01:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with Arthur Dingly. Peter Horn User talk 02:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  Okay, we currently have a tie, so let's wait a little longer for more input. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 20:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Favor: That article is hardly even a whole article on its own. No reason the info couldn't be easily applied to this page. The same could be said for the entire article covering the concept railroad bogies pivot to allow for easier turning, another simple concept that could be explained in a few sentences on this page. That said, I really think maybe a separate page for railroad bogies in general, as opposed to truck bogies, etc, might be appropriate, a page that can deal with the history, development, articulation, AND individual parts in one place without cluttering up the page describing the concept of "bogie" too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs) 13:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as the list article is currently constituted (clearly labeled "List of railroad truck parts" and covering only railroad bogies, whereas this page embraces rail, trucks (lorries), tracked vehicles, etc.). In the meanwhile the list article should be renamed "List of railroad bogie parts" to be consistent. Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split and rename

Split this, convert to a disambig. The two topics would become:

• Bogie suspension covering off-road trucks and other road vehicle suspension using a vertically swivelling bogie. Note that rocker-bogie, the current redirect target, is only one narrow part of this.
• Bogie (rail) for railway lateral articulation.

Andy Dingley (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Wait until the dust settles from the two open merge proposals, before any splitting is done. It's too much of a headache to perform two merges and a split simultaneously. Also, there's an unrelated redirect at Bogie suspension, so you'll need to reformulate your plan. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 18:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I have closed the two merge proposals above, the first for no merge the second for merge. All three discussions are now stale. I suggest as voidxor suggests that you do the merge and then wait a couple of months. Then if there are no objections create the split, by copying the necessary material from this one into the new article and then put in a WP:RM for the move and creation of the dab page.

Please note the guidance in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and make sure you place a link in the edit comment of the target article to the articles from which text is copied, this is needed for Copyright and because it helps trace the edit history of the copied text in the target article. -- PBS (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Articulated bogie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was consensus to merge.@User:Andy Dingley and User:Voidxor its up to you to do the merger if you still want it to go ahead. I am simply going to removed the stale merge templates. PBS (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Merge Articulated bogie into this article. I can't see the distinction otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Merge: As articulation could be covered in a single section on this page. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 18:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have done the merge as the text in Articulated bogie was only one paragraph long. It will probably need better integration, but I will leave that to someone who know more about the subject. -- PBS (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

There is so much there that is just plain wrong; the impression given by that paragraph is either (a) the only way of eliminating flange squeal is articulation (this is certainly not the case); or (b) that all bogies are used for articulation. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Agreed on both counts. Worse still, it's uncited. – voidxor 21:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Added Archives

I will add 4 access-dates and 0 archive urls to the citations in this page. Details:

• Added access date for http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/collegiate/bogie, (see diff when it was first added to article)
• Added access date for https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=bogie&submit.x=0&submit.y=0, (see diff when it was first added to article)
• Added access date for http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bogie?searchDictCode=all, (see diff when it was first added to article)
• Added access date for http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr18/pdf/f52_technology.pdf, (see diff when it was first added to article)

--Tim1357 ^talk|poke 15:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bogie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529152114/http://www.uctc.net/papers/114.pdf to http://www.uctc.net/papers/114.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140729221255/http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/company-overview/railroad-dictionary/?i=J to http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/company-overview/railroad-dictionary/?i=J
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304045504/http://www.sctco.com/pdf/sect_1.pdf to http://www.sctco.com/pdf/sect_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823034931/http://www.rtu.mmu.ac.uk/pubs/Iwnicki%20Grassie%20Kik%20-%20Track%20Settlement%20prediction%20using%20computer%20simulation%20tools.pdf to http://www.rtu.mmu.ac.uk/pubs/Iwnicki%20Grassie%20Kik%20-%20Track%20Settlement%20prediction%20using%20computer%20simulation%20tools.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)