Reading this discussion, something rattled around in my brain, something about how the I.C.C. tolerance for driver diameters was 3/32 of an inch. Ran it through a calculator, and guess what? It comes out to the decimal measurement of .09375".

Which reminds me--that same tolerance is likely required for diesels like GE 45-tonners, with rod drive between axles on trucks.

A tolerance from Strasburg of .00600" vs. a legislated maximum of .09375"? I'd say that was very good indeed.

The tolerance has to be tighter with mechanical drives like that. I seem to recall that with individual electrically driven axles--most diesels--the tolerance can be considerably greater, up to about 1/4 of an inch, or .25".

We must have some dumb railfans around who can't understand the idea of tolerances, which can be described as limits of variation. It's not that unusual. You can buy, say, aftermarket pistons and rods for your car engine; they'll come from some other firm than the one that built the engine, but they'll fit, and that's because they are made to a standard tolerance for this application.

It's not what I'd call rocket science.

Not to beat the topic to death, but I only recently logged on to find the following comments on my prior post. I believe I deserve a fair shake at a rebuttal:



Please excuse me for attempting to dispel a falsity in the public eye, I certainly am aware of the quality products your railroad's shop produces. My comment was objective in basis, and was in no way aimed at denigrating the good name of your company. It speaks worlds that in today's modern age, a company solely focused on preserving the nostalgia and expertise of yesteryear can succeed and maintain an industry-wide reputation for quality.

I am appalled, however, at the lack of professionalism with which my curiosity was met. Insinuating that my moniker is a purposeful means to disguise my true identity is farcical, considering my name is in my signature! Curious RYPN-ers may refer to this post (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30568&start=15) wherein I abbreviated my signature in order to avoid confusion with another fellow railroader of the same name.

I must apologize if the candor of my initial post ended up being more accusatory than inquisitive, but am pleased to know this information regarding 844's drivers was in fact false. I must reiterate that this information was received from an industry contact who works as an officer for the UP, not your "run of the mill" railfan, hence why I imagined it might have been factual.

Very well put, Rich. I wouldn't have ever figured you for a troublemaker in all the years I've known you. I apologize for not stepping in sooner to bail you out for I have a VERY busy work schedule and do not spend nearly as much time reading on this forum as I would like to...just a few more years 'til retirement.

Reminiscence aside, I too, am glad that the latest drama was only a rumor and most importantly, the 844 had her tires balanced and rotated properly. (Relax, it's a joke!)

Furthermore, this thread has certainly makes one ponder future posting upon this forum for fear of being met with the same ridicule that Rich encountered by merely trying to DISPEL a rumor and not foster it. In order to act in favor of "Railway Preservation" we must be more open to posts of this nature before jumping to conclusions and warding off decent members of this forum. There are numerous great (young) minds here whose input we cannot afford to lose just because of someone's intolerance and close-mindedness. I fully understand these things can be frustrating, but preservation is this forum's goal, and I'll be damned if it gets soiled.

My .02
DC